Создать набор быстрых ссылок

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing the actual API limits (30/60/1024 chars), the exact error returned when exceeded ('Превышена допустимая длина'), the advice to truncate beforehand, and the immutability of created sets. That is precisely the behavioral context an agent needs before a write call.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the operation, then constraints, then the immutability consequence. Dense and purposeful, with only minor redundancy against the schema's maxLength fields.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, annotations covering safety, and fully documented parameters, the description is nearly complete — limits, error behavior, and immutability are all covered. The gap is the return value: since the new set must be 'переназначен объявлению', the agent needs to know an identifier comes back, which is neither in the description nor in an output schema.

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 the schema already documents each field's maxLength, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the consequence of exceeding those lengths (API error) and by reinforcing the 1–8 item range, though it repeats the character limits already in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Создаёт набор быстрых ссылок (1–8 штук)'. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling read/delete tools (get_sitelinks, delete_sitelinks) by the create verb, but it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives clear usage context for the key decision: sets are immutable, so changing links requires creating a new set and reassigning it to an ad — which effectively routes the agent here for updates. It does not explicitly name alternatives (delete_sitelinks, get_sitelinks) or state when not to use it.

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