update_keyword_bids

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is a 'guarded write' and that it is a stub, preventing the agent from attempting destructive actions locally. This is transparent about behavioral limitations.

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 brief and front-loads the key purpose and constraint. It uses minimal verbiage to convey essential information, though it could be slightly more explicit about preview vs. adjustment behavior.

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 is a stub, the description provides sufficient context that it will not perform real writes. Without an output schema, it does not explain return values, but as a stub, this is acceptable. It is complete enough for an agent to avoid misuse.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the purpose, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 verb ('Preview or adjust'), the resource ('keyword bids'), and the context ('guarded write'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it's for keyword bid adjustments, which is unique among the update_* tools.

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 description mentions the tool is only available as a hosted endpoint and that this local instance is an introspection stub, guiding the agent not to expect real functionality. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_target_bids.

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