ozon_ad_campaign_bids

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the mutating nature ('Update'), the expected payload shape, and the non-obvious unit/format requirement (micro-rubles as a string). However, it does not explain whether existing bids are replaced, any constraints, 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: the action and resource come first, followed immediately by the crucial format details. There is no filler, and the micro-rubles example is compact and useful.

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 two-parameter mutation this is minimally workable: it identifies both parameters and adds the hardest-to-infer detail (bid units and string format). However, there is no output schema or annotation coverage, and sku formatting plus behavioral effects are left unspecified.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions and the bids item type is just 'object', so the description must compensate. It does explain bids as [{sku, bid}] and gives a concrete micro-rubles string example, but campaign_id semantics and the sku field type/format remain implicit.

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 clearly states the action ('Update goods bids in a campaign') and the main resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling bid-related tools like ozon_ad_bids_competitive or ozon_ad_min_bids, but the object and verb are specific enough to be understood.

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 is given about when to prefer this tool over related ad-bid tools, nor are any exclusions or workflow prerequisites mentioned. The '[P0]' prefix signals priority, not usage context.

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