Установить ставки

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

Annotations already cover readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the silent no-op on autostrategies and the mandatory prerequisite call ordering. It does not describe what happens with conflicting or multiple ID arrays, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, then preconditions, then the recommended call sequence. Dense and largely waste-free, though the middle sentence packs condition and consequence into a single long clause.

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?

No output schema, so the description needn't explain returns, and annotations cover the mutation profile. However, all five parameters are optional and the description never states that at least one target level must be supplied, nor whether the target arrays are mutually exclusive — a real gap for a bid-setting tool with no required parameters.

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 every parameter (bid, context_bid, keyword_ids, ad_group_ids, campaign_ids) is documented in-schema with units and level meaning. The description repeats the per-ruble and per-level semantics without adding format or cardinality rules beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (set bids, in rubles, for search/networks) and enumerates the three target levels: keywords, ad groups, campaigns. An agent can distinguish it from get_bid_adjustments or set_bid_adjustments. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition that makes this tool effective (manual bid management only) and the failure mode on autostrategies (call succeeds silently, no effect on impressions), plus a required workflow: get_strategy first, then get_keyword_auction. This is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs.

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