Change ad group bid

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

Beyond annotations (write operation, idempotent, non-destructive), the description explains that the value replaces the current bid (not adds), repeats are safe, unit depends on paymentModel, and returns apiPointBalance. It also states it cannot pause/resume/delete, adding significant behavioral context.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds necessary detail (unit, idempotence, constraints, return value, exclusions) without redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the complexity.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description covers the return (acknowledgement plus apiPointBalance). It also includes constraints, payment model effects, and how to read the current bid, making it fully sufficient to invoke the tool 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description enriches both parameters: price is in rubles, at least 1, and replaces current value; groupId comes from list_groups. This adds practical meaning beyond the schema's basic 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Sets one ad group's bid' to a given amount. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning what it cannot do, such as changing the budget (use change_group_budget) or altering group status.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: only groups on manual bid management accept it, and it cannot change budget or status. It names an alternative (change_group_budget) and references list_groups for reading current bid, making usage context clear.

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