Удалить корректировки ставок

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

The description does not contradict the annotations: destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false already signal the destructive, non-idempotent nature of the operation. The description adds only the id-based deletion detail and API endpoint, but does not surface additional consequences such as irreversibility or behavior for nonexistent ids.

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 front-loaded, efficient sentence with no filler. The parenthetical endpoint reference is compact and disambiguating, so every part earns its place.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description is nearly sufficient. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention return values, error cases, or side effects of deleting bid modifiers, leaving minor but real gaps.

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 'ids' parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description merely repeats that deletion happens 'по id', adding no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a clear action verb ('удаляет') plus a specific resource ('корректировки ставок') and a precise deletion scope ('по id'). It distinguishes this tool from its sibling tools for adding, getting, and setting bid modifiers.

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 intended use is only implied: use this tool when existing bid modifiers should be deleted by their identifiers. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative tool to choose, although the sibling names make the distinction fairly inferable.

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