Обновить текстовое объявление

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the important behavioral detail that editing an active ad sends it for re-moderation, which is not in the annotations. This is valuable context beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, the second adds the critical moderation behavior. It's front-loaded with the most important information.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, all documented in the schema, and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what fields it updates, and the moderation consequence. The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention whether partial updates are allowed (e.g., can you update just the title without providing text?), but the schema's optional parameters imply this.

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 all 5 parameters are already documented in the schema with their constraints (maxLength, minLength, etc.). The description doesn't add much beyond what the schema provides, but it does list the three main fields (title, text, href) in the overview. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb (обновляет) and the resource (текстовое объявление), and lists the specific fields that can be updated (заголовок, текст, посадочная страница). It also includes the API endpoint (ads/update) for reference. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_text_ad and ad_action.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: when updating the title, text, or landing page of a text ad. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tools. The note about moderation re-review is a useful usage hint.

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