avito_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: submit=true presses Enter and sending a message requires confirm=true, which functions as a safety gate. However, it omits that clear defaults to true (the field is wiped before typing) and says nothing about permissions or failure behavior.

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?

Very compact and front-loaded: the core action comes first, then the two behavioral caveats. Nothing is padded, though the fragmentary style loses a little clarity.

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 5-param, 0%-coverage tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most consequential flags (submit, confirm) but leaves clear and text unexplained and does not describe the return state, so it is only adequately complete.

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 0% and there are 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains ref (a snapshot reference), submit, and confirm, but leaves text and clear undocumented, so compensation is only partial.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: types text into a field, with ref coming from a snapshot. An agent can distinguish this from avito_press and avito_click. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied rather than spelled out: the messaging scenario ('в сообщениях это отправка') tells the agent when confirm is needed, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over avito_press or avito_replace_text.

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