yd_retargeting_lists_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create', implying mutation, but fails to disclose consequences (e.g., idempotency, return values, permissions, rate limits, or relationship to existing lists). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 single sentence of 14 words, efficiently conveying the core purpose. It is appropriately sized but could be slightly expanded without becoming verbose, e.g., adding a brief note about the return value or required permissions.

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 that this tool has 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns a list ID), how to handle the multi-account client_login parameter, or the exact relationship with Metrika goals/segments. An agent would need external documentation for full understanding.

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 the schema already documents parameters well. The description adds context by linking goals to Yandex Metrika, which complements the schema's mention of 'Metrika goal or segment ID'. However, it does not explain parameters like 'description' or 'client_login' beyond what the schema provides, so added value is marginal.

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 action (create) and resource (retargeting/audience conditions) and specifies the basis (Yandex Metrika goals or audience segments). It distinguishes from sibling tools like yd_retargeting_lists_delete and yd_retargeting_lists_get. However, it could explicitly mention Yandex Direct context for clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like yd_audience_targets_add or yd_smart_targets_add. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing goals/segments), limitations, or scenarios for avoidance, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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