update_bidder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Update an existing bidder.' It does not reveal whether the update is partial (PATCH) or full replacement, what happens if the bidder does not exist, authentication/permission requirements, or any side effects. The only implicit behavioral trait is that the bidder must already exist.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler words or repetition. It is appropriately short, though it under-specifies. Given its brevity, it earns a high score for conciseness, but the structure is minimal with no additional context.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention that the id parameter is required to identify which bidder to update, that other fields are optional updates, or what the response/return behavior will be. This is a significant gap for a tool that can modify an existing resource.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters (id, name, status, bid_url). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enhance understanding of parameter usage.

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 'Update an existing bidder' clearly identifies the verb (update) and resource (bidder), and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from create_bidder. However, it does not specify which fields can be updated, relying entirely on the schema to convey scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of create_bidder for new bidders, delete_bidder for removal, or any conditions under which updating might be inappropriate. The description simply restates the tool's function without contextual usage advice.

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