⚠️ Иерархия: привязать объявления

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description states it reassigns ads and changes owner, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or reversibility. The presence of dryRun parameter adds some safety context, but overall behavioral disclosure is minimal beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loads the essential action. Every word adds value, with no unnecessary content. It efficiently conveys the core functionality.

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?

Despite a rich schema for parameters, the description itself is sparse. It does not explain success outcomes, error scenarios, or behavioral nuances beyond the reassignment action. For a mutation tool with no output schema, more context is needed to fully inform the agent.

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 detailed descriptions for each parameter (employeeId, itemIds, dryRun, idempotencyKey). The description only adds context for employeeId (source). Given high schema coverage, the description's contribution is marginal, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 'reassigns ads to an employee (changes owner)' and specifies the source for employeeId from hierarchy_get_employees_v1. It distinguishes from sibling tools like hierarchy_list_items_by_employee_id_v1 and hierarchy_get_employees_v1, making the action unique.

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 a clear usage context: use the employeeId from hierarchy_get_employees_v1. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the purpose (reassigning ownership) is distinct from sibling tools. The guidance is adequate for correct invocation.

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