Обновить группу объявлений

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false (mutation), idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description does not introduce additional behavioral information beyond what annotations provide, and it does not contradict them. Role of description is minimal but acceptable given annotation coverage.

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, concise sentence that directly states the action and scope. The information is front-loaded and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The schema fully documents parameters, annotations cover mutation/idempotency/destructiveness, and there is no output schema. The description, though brief, is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. The only minor gap is not mentioning negativeKeywords in the prose, but the schema covers it, so overall completeness is strong.

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%, with all four parameters (id, name, regionIds, negativeKeywords) individually described. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden and does it well.

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 clearly states the tool updates the name and/or display regions of an ad group, and includes the exact API endpoint (adgroups/update). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_ad_group and list_ad_groups, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 verb 'updates' and the described scope (name/regions) clearly indicate it modifies existing ad groups. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over alternatives, such as using keyword_action for keyword-level changes, or note exclusions, but the purpose itself provides contextual guidance among the sibling list.

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