Создать текстовое объявление

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses additional behavioral traits: it mentions that new ads are drafts and that the tool requires href, which is not evident from the schema alone. It also notes the deprecation of the mobile field indirectly via schema, but the description reinforces this. This adds transparency about the post-creation state (draft) and parameter constraints.

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 composed of two sentences and is relatively concise, front-loading the core action. It includes essential caveats (draft status, alternative for BusinessId) without excessive verbosity. The structure is clear, though it could be slightly trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description adequately covers the operation's purpose, the draft nature of created ads, and the specific requirement for href. It does not describe return values or error scenarios, but the lack of an output schema makes this less critical. The mention of an alternative for BusinessId enhances completeness. Overall, it is sufficiently informative for a create operation.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds tool-level context (e.g., href is the landing page and required) but does not provide additional per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. Thus, it adds minimal extra meaning.

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 that the tool creates a text ad (TextAd) in an ad group, using a specific verb ('Создаёт') and resource ('текстовое объявление'). It distinguishes itself from related tools by explicitly mentioning that ads with BusinessId should be created via raw_request, thereby differentiating from alternatives.

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 provides usage context by stating that new ads are created as drafts and that the tool specifically passes the landing page via href (required). It also explicitly points out that for BusinessId, raw_request should be used instead, giving a clear alternative. However, it does not comprehensively cover when to use this tool over other ad creation or update tools.

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