Задать ставки ключевых фраз

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

The description mentions it sets manual bids and specifies scope, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether existing bids are overwritten or merged, or how partial failures are handled. The annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, but the description adds no further behavioral details beyond the basic modification.

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 concise sentence that effectively conveys the core functionality without unnecessary verbosity. It is well-structured and includes all essential information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the main use case and the schema defines the structure thoroughly. However, it does not mention potential response behavior or error scenarios, and it is unclear whether setting bids replaces or merges existing values, which would be important for a complete understanding. Given the moderate complexity, it is mostly adequate but leaves a few gaps.

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 schema provides field-level descriptions for each parameter, and the description adds context about the duality of search and network bids and the ability to target multiple keywords. It clarifies that each element requires a target ID and at least one bid field, which is not fully obvious from the schema alone, adding meaningful semantics.

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's function: setting manual bids for keyword phrases on search and networks, with the ability to target specific keywords or entire ad groups/campaigns. It includes the API method reference, which adds specificity, and the verb 'sets' is precise.

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 does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_bid_modifier' or 'set_bid_modifiers'. Although the name and scope imply it is for keyword bids, there is no explicit comparison or condition to guide selection among sibling tools.

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