prebid_skill

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: mixed read/write mode, OAuth 2.0 requirement, credit costs (free reads, possible charges for mutations), and output types. It also implies mutation for cleanup/update actions.

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 efficiently structured with labeled sections (MODE, AUTH, etc.) and front-loaded with overall purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's multiple sub-actions, the description covers high-level outputs and credit costs. The action enum in schema provides specifics. However, no output schema exists, and per-sub-action return details could be clearer, but overall it's sufficient.

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 100%, with detailed descriptions for action (enum with sub-action details) and network_code. The main description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 purpose: 'Plan and operate Prebid.js / header bidding setup for GAM.' It lists specific actions (generate targeting keys, line items, preview, inspect, cleanup), making it distinct from sibling tools like creative_qa or dai_skill.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section provides explicit use cases, such as generating Prebid targeting keys or cleaning up artifacts. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, the guidance is clear and contextual.

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