⚠️ Применить пакет VAS

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint: true). The description adds the monetary cost aspect, which is valuable beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like idempotency (already false) or potential side effects beyond spending money.

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: one sentence plus a parameter note. All information is front-loaded with the cost warning. No extraneous text.

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 paid, destructive tool, the description is minimal. It does not explain the output format, prerequisites, or how to safely test with dryRun (though dryRun is in schema). Lacks context for the optional user_id and idempotencyKey. Without output schema, more description would help.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description only repeats the package_id meaning from the schema, adding no further context or usage hints for parameters like dryRun or idempotencyKey.

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 clearly states the tool applies a VAS package to an ad and that it costs money. The verb 'applies' and resource 'VAS package to an ad' are specific. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like items_apply_vas or items_put_item_vas, leaving some ambiguity.

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 warns that the tool is paid, implying caution, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. No mention of context or exclusions.

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