direct.hf.set_keyword_bid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it. It notes the currency (rubles) but never explains that 'apply' toggles real mutation, what 'dry_run' previews, whether bids are clamped to campaign strategy limits, or what permissions/client-login context are required for a live change.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and scope. It wastes no words, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and four of six parameters undocumented, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell from this text whether it must pass apply=true to effect the change or how errors/failed keyword_ids are surfaced.

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 33%: only account_id and direct_client_login are documented in the schema. The description clarifies the currency of bid_rub, but keyword_id, apply, and dry_run — including the crucial preview/commit semantics — are explained in neither the schema nor the description.

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 (set) and resource (bid for a keyword) with the unit (rubles), so the operation is unambiguous. The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from direct.hf.set_keyword_bids_bulk, though that sibling is never named. The 'Human-friendly:' prefix adds no informational value.

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 guidance on when to use this versus direct.hf.set_keyword_bids_bulk, direct.hf.set_autotargeting_bid, or direct.hf.bid_sweep_run. The apply/dry_run flags make the risk profile of a call non-obvious, yet the description says nothing about when to preview versus commit.

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