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

Annotations already flag the write/destructive/open-world nature, but the description adds critical behavior: multipliers can only increase bids (never decrease), the 10-segment cap, the stacking semantics on top of placement multipliers with a worked example, live re-read + merge behavior, and the preview-then-confirm write cycle. This goes well beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Despite mixed Italian/English and dense parentheticals, the text is front-loaded with the core purpose, then mechanics, then flow, then policy. Every sentence earns its place, though the packing of many concepts into run-on sentences slightly hurts readability.

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?

With no output schema and a destructive write tool, the description covers mode semantics, the confirmation workflow, side effects (placement multipliers preserved), constraints, and a usage policy. An agent has everything needed to call it safely and correctly.

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 75%, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: percentage is an integer 0-900 that can only raise bids, the set/remove/clear_all interaction, and where audience_id comes from. It meaningfully enriches parameter understanding beyond the 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 names a specific verb and resource (set audience bid multipliers on a Sponsored Products campaign) and pinpoints the underlying field (dynamicBidding.shopperCohortBidding). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ads_update_sp_target_bid or ads_update_sp_campaign.

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?

It spells out operational modes (set / remove / clear_all), the two-step confirm flow with an explicit 'when-not-to-write' preview rule, and a practical policy rule (only on campaigns with ACoS within target, measured over 14-30 days). It also names the sibling that supplies audience_id (ads_list_sp_audiences).

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