set_location_bid_adjustments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates that bids are adjusted, but does not explain whether adjustments replace existing ones, whether it is a write operation requiring special permissions, or what happens to omitted locations. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 short sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified. It is not merely concise; it lacks necessary detail that would make it an adequate description. The structure is front-loaded but the content is too vague to be considered well-crafted.

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, no output schema, and a partially documented nested array parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, idempotency, or the effect on existing bid adjustments, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 50%, and the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. It implies that 'adjustments' contain location-specific bid changes but does not explain the role of 'campaignId', 'locationId', or 'bidModifier', nor the expected format of the array. The description does little to compensate for the low coverage.

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 'Adjust bids by location' states the core action of the tool (adjust bids) and the resource (by location), but it is vague and does not specify the exact scope (e.g., campaign-level bid modifiers). It also fails to distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'update_bid_adjustments', making its purpose ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and does not indicate whether this tool is preferred over 'update_bid_adjustments' or 'add_location_targets'.

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