wb_advert_bids_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates units and placement values but does not reveal whether the operation overwrites or merges existing bids, whether it applies immediately, what happens to unspecified bids, or what errors/effects may occur. This is a significant gap for a mutation endpoint.

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 extremely short and information-dense, front-loading the action and units. Every phrase contributes useful constraints, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the input structure, units, and allowed placements. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, the absence of behavioral details like whether this fully replaces existing bids leaves the tool only minimally viable 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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds non-obvious semantics: bids are in kopecks and placement is constrained to search/recommendations/combined. This goes beyond the bare schema structure and meaningfully clarifies how to construct the calls.

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 clear action ('Change CPM/CPC bids') on a specific resource ('bids'), and adds concrete units (KOPECKS) and placement values. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like wb_advert_bids_recommendations, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 use this tool versus alternatives, such as wb_advert_bids_recommendations for bid suggestions or other advert management tools. The placement enum hints at scope but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria.

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