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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: batch size limit, per-keyword independent bids, and PER-ID read-after-write verification of the outcome. It stops short of disclosing the preview/confirm flow that the schema hints at.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then splits single vs batch cleanly with a bracketed rationale. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler sentences.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope, batch limits, and result verification (read-after-write). The main omission is any mention of the confirm_id preview-then-execute workflow, which an agent would only discover from the schema.

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?

With only 50% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining the keyword_id+bid pairing, the items element shape, per-item bid independence, and the max-25 cap. account_id/confirm_id carry schema descriptions; only profile_id remains undocumented in both places.

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 (aggiorna) and resource (bid di keyword SP), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like ads_update_sp_keyword_state (state) and ads_update_sp_target_bid (targets). An agent can route to it without opening the 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?

Explicitly lays out the two invocation modes (single: keyword_id+bid; batch: items array) and recommends batch for multi-keyword work with a rationale (fewer calls, no burst), plus the MAX 25 constraint. It does not mention the confirm_id preview/execute two-step, which is a usage gap for a mutation tool.

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