change_bid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds the HTTP PUT method, but does not disclose permissions, price validation rules, reversibility, or error/edge-case behavior. The phrase 'Change' only restates the mutation; it doesn't explain side effects beyond the obvious.

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 two sentences plus an example, front-loading the core purpose and providing a usage snippet with no filler or redundant explanation.

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 tool is simple with two required parameters and has an output schema, so the missing return-value explanation is acceptable. However, it lacks parameter semantics and any caveats about interruptible instances, making it minimally adequate but not fully self-contained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The example shows arguments (instance_id=12345, price=0.25) but provides no meaning for price units, allowed ranges, or how instance_id is resolved. The schema's names are self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the example.

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 ('Change the bid price') on a specific resource ('interruptible instance') and includes the endpoint path, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like manage_instance or create_instance. The example call reinforces the purpose.

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?

It clearly identifies when to use the tool: to change the bid price of an interruptible instance, and gives a concrete invocation example. It doesn't provide explicit exclusions or alternative tool names, but no sibling appears to handle bid pricing, so the context is sufficient.

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