Adjust many ad group bids

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

Beyond the annotations (which only say non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world), the description discloses that ad groups on automatic bidding are skipped, that auto-created bids are read first, that bids are clamped to min_bid/max_bid, and that the result carries old and new values. It also documents the gating rule requiring confirm='APPLY' above the PINTEREST_ADS_BULK_THRESHOLD count or any increase above PINTEREST_ADS_MAX_INCREASE_PCT, which is exactly the kind of safety context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four short paragraphs, each front-loaded with its topic: mode selection, clamping/skip behavior, then the confirmation gate. Nearly every sentence earns its place; the only slack is the vague trailing phrase 'with progress' in the opening line.

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 7-parameter bulk mutation with an output schema present, the description covers the risk surface well: mode selection, boundaries, skipped entities, confirmation gating, and a dry-run-first workflow. The one real hole is ad_account_id, which is undocumented and potentially confusing given that ids alone are required.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning, and it does for change_pct (with a -10 = -10% example), set_bid (account-currency and a 0.85 example), min_bid/max_bid (clamping bounds in currency units), and confirm (literal 'APPLY' token). 'ids' is self-evident, but ad_account_id is left entirely unexplained in both schema and 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Change many ad group bids at once'), plus a scope qualifier ('many ... at once'), so an agent immediately knows this is a bulk bid mutation. It is inherently distinguishable from the sibling pinterest_ads_adjust_budgets by resource, but it never explicitly contrasts the two, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

It states the two mutually exclusive operating modes ('pass change_pct ... or set_bid') and prescribes a workflow ('Run in dry-run first and show the user the table'), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives such as update_ad_groups for single-entity edits or adjust_budgets for budget changes.

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