adtech_adjust_bid

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

The description discloses that this is a write operation, requires confirmation, and goes through a budget gate and audit. This provides essential transparency about side effects and safeguards. It does not detail reversibility or error behavior, but the confirmation and audit mention adequately cover the main behavioral aspects for a tool with no annotations.

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 concise—two short sentences in Chinese—and front-loads the core action. It packs essential information (write, confirm, budget gate, audit) without unnecessary verbiage, making it easy to parse and act upon.

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 relatively simple write tool with a nested body parameter, the description adequately covers the main behavioral aspects and points to the server contract for body details. It does not specify return values or error cases, but given the absence of an output schema and the tool's straightforward nature, this is acceptable. A perfect score would require explicit return/error semantics.

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 descriptions already fully cover each parameter (e.g., confirm false/true, reason required on execution, op_id for idempotency). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond reinforcing the confirmation mechanism and overall purpose. Since schema coverage is 100%, the score aligns with the baseline of 3.

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 tool's primary function: adjusting campaign bid/budget. It explicitly mentions it is a write operation requiring confirmation, and the context of 'media-adapter budget gate + audit' further clarifies its purpose. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like adtech_set_campaign_status or adtech_launch_campaign.

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?

The description implicitly indicates when to use this tool—whenever bid or budget adjustments are needed—by stating its function. It also mentions the confirmation requirement, which is a key usage condition. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide additional guidance on selection criteria, so it falls slightly short of a perfect score.

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