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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries real weight — and it delivers by disclosing the preview/apply semantics of confirm, plus the conditional bid adjustment triggered when bid_multiplier>0. It stops short of explaining what happens to pre-existing location targets or what the response contains.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then ID sourcing, then optional-parameter behavior. No filler. Slightly dense with parenthetical example, but every clause carries 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?

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with an output schema present (so return values need no explanation), the description covers the non-obvious inputs and the confirm gating. The remaining gap is whether adding a target merges with or overrides existing campaign targeting.

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%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it specifies that location_ids are numeric Microsoft LocationIds (with a concrete example) sourced from microsoft_location_search, and defines bid_multiplier's unit (%) and confirm's effect. account_id, campaign_id and customer_id are left undefined but are self-evident identifiers.

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 ('Adds a geographic location target to a campaign') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling targeting tools by naming the ID namespace ('Bing LocationIds'). An agent can route here versus add_microsoft_device_target or add_microsoft_demographic_target without opening 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to microsoft_location_search for obtaining the numeric LocationIds and explains the confirm=false/true workflow, which is the key when-to-use decision. It does not state when this tool should NOT be used (e.g. replacing existing geo targets vs. adding), so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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