update_target_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 labels the tool as a 'guarded write', indicating destructive potential, but does not specify required permissions, side effects (e.g., what happens to bids), or whether the stub actually processes requests or returns an error. The 'introspection stub' clarification is useful but insufficient for a write operation.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states purpose, and the second provides necessary context about the endpoint being a local stub. No extraneous words, though the first sentence could be slightly more specific about the action (e.g., 'modify' instead of 'adjust').

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and the stub nature. However, it lacks details on expected output, error handling, and specifics about the 'changes' parameter structure. The agent may not understand how to construct a valid request or interpret the response.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some context beyond the schema, such as explaining 'preview' as an alternative to applying writes and 'dry_run' as an alias. However, the 'changes' parameter remains vague ('high-level desired changes'), and no example or format is provided.

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 previews or adjusts Sponsored Products target bids, using verbs 'preview' and 'adjust' with a specific resource. It mentions 'guarded write' and 'hosted endpoint', differentiating it from read tools, but does not explicitly distinguish it from other update bid tools like update_keyword_bids or update_sd_target_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_keyword_bids, update_sp_target_state). It mentions it's a 'hosted endpoint only' and a local 'introspection stub', implying it may not be functional locally, but does not clarify how the agent should behave or when to choose this tool over others.

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