Ставки под объём трафика

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=false/openWorldHint=true, the description discloses the crucial behavioral trait that the bid is calculated once against current auctions and is not monitored afterwards, plus the rejection condition for non-manual strategies. These are exactly the operational facts an agent cannot infer from the structured fields.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one-time calculation caveat, the strategy precondition, and the targeting restriction. Every sentence carries information, though the Russian phrasing packs several constraints into single long sentences.

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 5-parameter nested mutation with no output schema, the description covers modes, preconditions, side effects, and where to read results. It does not explicitly state that at least one of keyword_ids/ad_group_ids/campaign_ids must be supplied, which is a real gap given that no parameters are marked required.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real value by explaining the search/network rule pairing and the autotargeting restriction on targeting lists. It is worth noting the description says the rule cannot be set for a standalone autotargeting while the keyword_ids item schema still mentions autotargeting IDs, a slight tension that would benefit from being resolved.

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 and resource (assign bids by rule instead of a fixed amount) and immediately names the two modes: search traffic volume (5–100%) and network audience coverage, with percent increase and ruble ceiling. This clearly distinguishes it from the fixed-amount sibling set_keyword_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?

It gives an explicit precondition (only under a manual strategy on the corresponding platform, otherwise Direct rejects the call) and names the alternative path for standalone autotargeting (use ad_group_ids or campaign_ids). It also routes the agent to get_keyword_auction for viewing the resulting bids.

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