direct.hf.bid_sweep_plan

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pro-only and sandbox-only execution, which is useful. However, it doesn't state what the plan contains, whether it mutates state, whether it requires specific permissions beyond pro, or what the output looks like. For a tool involved in experiment planning (potentially sensitive), this is insufficient.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is minimal for a tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation. It leaves the agent with significant gaps about usage context, parameter semantics, and return expectations. Not adequate for correct invocation.

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 50% (12 params, only 5 have descriptions). The description adds no parameter information. With low coverage, the description should compensate by explaining key parameters like bid_steps_rub, account_id, campaign_id, etc. It does not, leaving half the parameters 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 the action (build a bid sweep experiment plan) and scope (pro-only, sandbox execution), which is more specific than the name alone. However, it's terse and doesn't distinguish from siblings bid_sweep_run or bid_sweep_analyze. An agent can infer the difference (plan = generate, run = execute), but the description doesn't explicitly differentiate.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, no alternatives. The description notes it's pro-only and sandbox-only execution, which hints at context, but doesn't say when to choose this over bid_sweep_run or whether it's a prerequisite. No exclusions or alternatives named.

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