E'lonni boshqarish

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing crucial behavioral details: 'refresh: May be PAID unless free refresh is available', 'remove: delete a finished advert PERMANENTLY — cannot be undone', and the requirement to confirm with the user for paid or destructive actions. This adds significant value over the destructiveHint and idempotentHint flags, which are generic. The description paints a clear picture of side effects and prerequisites.

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 a compact bullet list that front-loads the main purpose and then breaks down each action with necessary details. Every line adds value: the intro clarifies it mirrors the 'My ads' page, and each bullet includes a definition plus any caveats (paid, permanent, confirmation). No wasted words, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—multiple state changes, potential costs, and a permanent deletion option—the description covers all essential aspects: what each action does, when it's paid, when confirmation is required, and the irreversibility of removal. There is no output schema, so return values are not needed. An agent has everything required to invoke the tool correctly and safely.

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 0%, but the description thoroughly explains the 'action' enum by detailing each possible value with its semantics and implications. For 'advert_id', the parameter name is self-explanatory and the schema already provides type and constraints. The description does not explicitly describe advert_id, but the action parameter's rich explanation compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Change the state of one of the account's adverts' and enumerates six specific actions with detailed explanations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like olx_list_my_adverts (listing) and olx_get_my_advert (viewing) by focusing on state mutations, 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 description provides concrete guidance for each action, including when to use them (e.g., 'activate: re-activate a finished/inactive advert') and important cautions (e.g., 'refresh: ... May be PAID unless free refresh is available — confirm with the user first'). While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the context makes it clear this is for modifying adverts, not for listing or viewing them. The guidance is strong but stops short of explicit 'when not to use' statements.

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