Создать группу объявлений

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false (writing), idempotentHint=false (each call may create a new group), and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond confirming the write operation. It doesn't mention side effects (e.g., requires existing campaign, creates a new resource each call) or what happens on success/failure. With annotations covering the major traits, a 3 is appropriate – the description adds some but not rich context.

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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with the key action front-loaded. No redundant phrasing or filler. It could be slightly expanded to mention usage guidance, but as is, it's concise and to the point, earning a high conciseness score.

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?

For a simple tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the region aspect. However, it doesn't mention potential prerequisites (e.g., campaign must exist), the return format (e.g., new ad group ID), or error outcomes. Since there are no nested objects and annotations are present, it's adequate but not fully complete – an agent might still wonder what to expect after a successful call.

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 100%, meaning all three parameters (name, campaignId, regionIds) are already documented in the schema with meaningful descriptions. The description only restates the existence of the regionIds concept ('с заданными регионами показа') without adding new semantics like validation rules or relationships between parameters. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb ('Создаёт' – creates), the resource ('группу объявлений' – ad group), and the context ('в кампании' – in a campaign, 'с заданными регионами показа' – with specified display regions). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like update_ad_group or delete_ad_groups by implying it's for new ad groups, and there is no ambiguity about the target resource.

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 – you'd use this when you need to create a new ad group for a campaign. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., when to use update_ad_group or delete_ad_groups instead). Given the large set of sibling tools, some explicit routing would help, but the purpose is straightforward enough that an agent can infer the right context.

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