wb_advert_cluster_bids

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly signals a write operation via 'Set' and clarifies the currency unit, but it does not say whether the provided bids replace or merge with existing cluster bids, whether the clusters must already exist, or what side effects (e.g., immediate campaign changes) the call has.

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?

Two brief sentences with the core action front-loaded. The second sentence adds the valuable unit clarification, though the Russian parenthetical '(ставки на кластеры)' largely repeats the first sentence and adds little value for an agent.

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 an untyped array parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits how clusters are referenced or discovered, whether the bids array represents a full replacement or a partial update, and how this tool differs from wb_advert_bids_set. An agent would need to inspect other tools or guess to call it safely.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema's inline example already defines the array item shape ([{advert_id, nm_id, norm_query, bid}]), so the baseline is 3. The description adds one genuinely useful detail — that the bid value is in RUB per 1000 views — but it does not clarify the semantics of norm_query, how cluster identifiers are obtained, or the valid ranges for bid values.

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 ('Set') and resource ('bids on specific search clusters') and adds the crucial pricing unit (RUB per 1000 views), so an agent knows what action is performed and on what. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related sibling wb_advert_bids_set, and 'specific search clusters' leaves the cluster identification model vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the very close alternatives in the sibling list, particularly wb_advert_bids_set (general bid setting) and wb_advert_clusters / wb_advert_clusters_stats (cluster retrieval). An agent cannot determine which bid-related tool to invoke for a given task, since no conditions or exclusions are stated.

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