⚠️ CPA auction: save bids

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explicitly warning that the tool affects auction spending/money and that higher bids mean higher display positions. It also mentions the overwrite behavior (not append), rate limits, and dryRun's preview functionality. No contradiction with annotations (destructiveHint true is consistent).

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 extremely concise (two main sentences plus a warning) and front-loads the critical financial warning. Every sentence provides 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?

Given the complexity (financial impact, parameters, limits) and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, key parameter semantics, side effects, rate limits, and references a sibling tool. However, it does not describe the response format or what indicates success, which could leave an agent uncertain about the next steps.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that pricePenny is in kopecks and expirationTime can be omitted or null for indefinite validity, enhancing understanding beyond the schema's technical descriptions.

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 saves/overwrites CPA auction bids for listings, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling cpa_auction_get_user_bids by directing users there to see current bids.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to save/overwrite bids) and when not to (use cpa_auction_get_user_bids to view bids). It also explains limits (200 listings per request, 200 req/min) and warns about financial impact. However, it does not explicitly compare with other CPA siblings like cpa_target_*, which could be ambiguous for an agent.

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