Действие с ключевыми фразами

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 action list: it does not say whether 'delete' is irreversible, whether 'suspend' can be undone via 'resume', what happens on a mixed batch of ids, or whether partial failures are reported. For a destructive batch operation, this is a meaningful gap.

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 action list front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently written, though the brevity is partly the source of the gaps noted elsewhere.

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?

This is a destructive, non-idempotent batch mutation with no output schema, yet the description says nothing about the return value (affected counts, per-id errors), batch limits, or the irreversibility of delete. Given the tool's risk profile and three parameters, the description leaves out information an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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 67% – 'ids' and 'client_login' carry their own descriptions, but 'action' has only an enum. The description restates the enum values without explaining their semantics (what suspension does to a keyword vs deletion), so it adds only marginal meaning over the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the moderate schema coverage.

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 ('Выполняет действие над ключевыми фразами по id') and enumerates the three supported actions, so an agent knows exactly what the tool mutates. It does not name sibling tools (list_keywords, add_keywords, set_keyword_bids), so differentiation is implied by the resource name rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_keyword_bids (bids) or delete_ad_groups-style sibling mutations, and no stated prerequisites. The action enum hints at usage, but an agent must infer that this is the only path for suspend/resume/delete on keywords.

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