Set Keyword Bid (gated mutation)

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

Annotations already convey mutation (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotency? Actually idempotentHint=true means safe to retry, destructiveHint=true indicates potential harm. The description adds 'GATED' and the micros unit, but does not elaborate on behavioral traits beyond that. It does not contradict annotations.

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 very concise: two sentences conveying the action and key constraint without any redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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's complexity (6 parameters, mutation, gated), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the role of explicit_user_intent, the required IDs, or provide guidance on when to use this tool relative to similar sibling tools. The annotations and output schema are helpful but the description should add more context for a safe mutation operation.

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 low (33%). The description only reinforces the micros requirement for cpc_bid_micros, already documented in the schema. It fails to add meaning for other parameters like customer_id, ad_group_id, criterion_id, explicit_user_intent, or response_format, which are critical for tool usage.

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 action ('Update the cpc_bid_micros for a keyword criterion'), the specific resource ('cpc_bid_micros'), and adds context about gating and micro conversion. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like google_ads_pause_keyword or google_ads_set_campaign_budget_micros.

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 mentions 'GATED' and the micros requirement but does not explain when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as when to set keyword bids versus campaign budgets, or what 'gated' means operationally. No prerequisites or exclusions are provided.

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