update_ad_group_bid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral context. It reveals that `dry_run` validates without executing, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention that updates are destructive, require permissions, or have rate limits. The return type is only vaguely described as 'Result with success status'.

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 efficient with a docstring format that front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be slightly more compact. No extraneous information.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema (which complements the return description) and the thorough parameter explanations, the tool is adequately documented for a simple update operation. It covers the essential context without missing critical information.

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 explain each parameter. It does so thoroughly: `ad_group_id` is the target ID, `cpc_bid_micros` includes units (micros with an example), `customer_id` notes optionality, and `dry_run` explains its validation behavior.

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 'Update the CPC bid for an ad group.' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with keywords, campaigns, or other entities, as no other tool updates ad group bids.

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 purpose is clear and implies when to use this tool (when updating a bid). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative approaches or provide guidance on when not to use it. The sibling list lacks any bid-related alternatives, so no confusion exists.

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