metrika_upload_offline_conversions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds genuine non-structured context: this write mutates goal statistics and feeds Direct optimisation, requires a confirmation hash, user confirmation, and a feature flag. It does not cover retry/failure behavior despite the idempotency key, keeping it below 5.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and then the prerequisites, with no filler. It is packed but each clause carries needed information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the prerequisites are well covered. However, for a data-upload tool with 0% schema coverage, the absence of any guidance on the conversions payload structure and idempotency_key usage is a real gap.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate, yet it only explains confirmation_hash indirectly. counter_id, conversions (an untyped array of free-form objects), idempotency_key, conversion_type and comment receive no meaning in either schema or description, leaving the payload shape entirely undocumented.

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 and resource (upload offline conversions to Metrika) and adds the downstream effect on goal stats and Direct optimisation. It also names the sibling metrika_validate_offline_conversions as the source of the required hash, so an agent can tell it apart from that tool without reading either schema.

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 gives concrete preconditions: the hash must come from metrika_validate_offline_conversions, user confirmation is required, and YANDEX_METRIKA_WRITE_ENABLED must be set. That effectively routes the agent to validate first. It does not state any when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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