Добавить ключевые фразы

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not mention failure modes, side effects, or authentication requirements beyond what flags convey. Consistency with annotations is maintained, but no additional value is provided.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and mentions optional bids without any fluff. Highly efficient and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple: two parameters, no output schema. The description covers the main action, but lacks any indication of what the response looks like or potential failure conditions (e.g., if a keyword already exists). Acceptable but not comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are described in the schema. The description's mention of optional bids ('при необходимости') adds little because the schema already marks bid and contextBid as not required. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb (adds) and resource (key phrases to ad group), and mentions optional bids. It distinguishes the action from set_keyword_bids (which only sets bids) but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling keyword_action, so it's clear but not fully distinguished.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like keyword_action or set_keyword_bids. It simply states what it does without any context on selection criteria or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.