Удалить уточнения

Does 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 beyond the endpoint reference: it does not say whether deletion is permanent, what happens to ads referencing the callouts, or how partial failures across multiple ids are handled — significant gaps for a destructive batch tool.

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, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the endpoint. No waste, though the extreme brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 destructive, non-idempotent batch delete with no output schema, the description should at minimum state irreversibility and error semantics. The schema and annotations cover parameters and the safety flag, but the consequences of invoking this tool are left entirely undisclosed.

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%, so both parameters (ids and the optional client_login fallback to YANDEX_DIRECT_LOGIN) are fully documented in the schema. The description's 'по id' merely echoes the schema, which is the expected baseline-3 outcome.

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 ('Удаляет уточнения по id') plus the underlying API endpoint (adextensions/delete), so an agent can tell it apart from get_callouts and add_callouts by the delete verb. It stops short of naming 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?

The description says nothing about when to use this versus add_callouts or get_callouts, and gives no preconditions — e.g. whether callouts must first be detached from ads or whether ids can refer to shared callout sets. Usage must be inferred entirely from the verb.

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