Изменить корректировки ставок

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: the API cannot toggle a modifier on/off, the toggle method is deprecated, and deletion is required to disable it. No contradiction with annotations. It does not describe invalid-id or partial-failure behavior, a minor 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the primary mutation, and the second sentence explains an important API limitation and the supported deletion route. Every sentence carries necessary information without padding.

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, fully schema-covered mutation, the description provides enough to choose and call the tool correctly. It also warns about the deprecated toggle method and gives a safe fallback. The main missing piece is return/error behavior, but no output schema is present anyway.

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%, and the required fields id and percent already have clear descriptions. The description says BidModifierSetItem accepts only Id and BidModifier but does not meaningfully expand on the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Меняет процент существующих корректировок' by adjustment id. It also differentiates this set operation from the delete path by explaining the deprecated toggle limitation and pointing to delete_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 description clearly frames the use case as updating existing bid modifiers rather than enabling/disabling them. It gives an explicit alternative ('удалить через delete_bid_modifiers') for the case where an adjustment must be turned off, though it does not explicitly contrast with add_bid_modifier for creation.

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