Действие с кампаниями

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds only the list of actions, which is already present in the schema enum. It provides no extra behavioral context such as irreversibility of delete or effects on related resources.

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?

One short sentence that front-loads the purpose and action list. No redundant content, optimal for an API that expects efficient parsing.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with two required parameters, both covered by the schema (one with description, the other self-explanatory from the enum). The description, along with annotations, adequately conveys the destructive nature and the scope. No output schema is provided, but the description does not need to explain return values for such a simple action tool.

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 description coverage is 50% (only 'ids' has a description). The description repeats the action list already defined in the enum but does not elaborate on the semantics of each action (e.g., difference between suspend and archive). It adds marginal value beyond the schema for the 'action' parameter.

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 states a specific action over a specific resource (campaigns) and enumerates the exact set of actions (suspend, resume, archive, unarchive, delete). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like ad_action or keyword_action by naming the resource and the specific lifecycle operations.

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?

The description implies usage for campaign lifecycle actions by listing them, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like update_campaign or provide conditions for when to use this tool. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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