delete_bid_modifiersDelete bid adjustments by ID to remove specific rate changes from Yandex Direct campaigns.
Удаляет корректировки ставок по id (bidmodifiers/delete).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | Id корректировок, которые нужно удалить. | |
| client_login | No | Логин клиента агентства или кабинета в управлении (из list_clients). Если не указан — YANDEX_DIRECT_LOGIN из конфигурации, а без него собственный аккаунт токена. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Input schema / properties / client_loginAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Логин клиента агентства или кабинета в управлении (из list_clients). Если не указан — YANDEX_DIRECT_LOGIN из конфигурации, а без него собственный аккаунт токена.",
+ "pattern": "^[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9._@-]{0,99}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.5.1Input schema / properties / ids / descriptionPrevious value: -"Bid modifier ids to delete."New value: +"Id корректировок, которые нужно удалить."v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — it does not say deletions are permanent, whether the ids array is applied atomically or partially on failure, or what happens to running campaigns that referenced the modifiers.
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?
A single short sentence with the resource and keying mechanism front-loaded and no filler. It is concise, though part of that brevity comes from omitting useful context rather than from tight editing.
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?
Annotations carry the destructive profile, the schema fully documents both parameters, and no output schema exists, so the description is minimally sufficient. For a destructive batch delete it should still flag irreversibility or partial-failure behavior, which is missing.
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%, including a description for 'ids' and a detailed fallback chain for 'client_login', so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only echoes that deletion is by id, adding no format or batch-size detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.
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 verb and resource ('Удаляет корректировки ставок по id') plus the API endpoint (bidmodifiers/delete), so the agent can tell it apart from get_bid_modifiers, add_bid_modifier and set_bid_modifiers. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to delete versus using set_bid_modifiers to update or add_bid_modifier to re-create. The only usage signal is the preposition 'по id', leaving the agent to infer the workflow from the verb alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.