Добавить корректировку ставок

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds a useful semantic constraint: BidModifier values are percentages per API rules, e.g. 0–1300, not money. However, it does not disclose whether repeated calls merge with existing modifiers, replace them, or create duplicates, nor what a successful response looks like.

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?

Two compact sentences with the purpose stated first and the critical value-format constraint immediately after. There is no redundant wording or filler, and the most important operational caveat is front-loaded.

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 tool with 7 parameters, nested objects, zero required parameters, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not mention that a target such as campaignId or adGroupId is likely required, how the adjustment types relate, or how this differs from set_bid_modifiers. An agent would need extra inference or external knowledge to invoke it 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that all percent values are percentages in the API range 0–1300 and are not monetary amounts. It also reinforces the campaign/ad group targeting distinction.

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 states a specific action and resource: adding a bid adjustment to a campaign or ad group. It is clear and immediately useful, but it does not contrast with the sibling tool set_bid_modifiers, so an agent might not know the exact difference between add and set.

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 given about when to use this tool instead of set_bid_modifiers, delete_bid_modifiers, or get_bid_modifiers. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions described beyond the general target being a campaign or ad group.

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