⚠️ CPA auction: save bids

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it warns about financial impact ('affects auction spending (money)'), clarifies the meaning of pricePenny and expirationTime, and notes the limits. No contradiction with annotations (destructiveHint=true). Annotations already mark as destructive and non-idempotent; description reinforces and elaborates.

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: three sentences covering purpose, warning, parameter details, limits, and cross-reference. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 purpose, financial implications, parameter semantics, limits, and where to find current bids. Missing only what the tool returns (no output schema), but this is partially compensated by the clear mutation nature and the sibling reference.

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 meaning beyond the schema: it explains pricePenny is 'in kopecks per action' and expirationTime 'omitted or null — indefinite', and states the array limit and request rate limit. This provides practical usage guidance.

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 uses the strong verb 'saves (overwrites)' and clearly specifies the resource (CPA auction bids for listings). It distinguishes from the sibling tool cpa_auction_get_user_bids, which is for viewing 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: it overwrites bids, affects spending, and includes limits (200 listings, 200 req/min). It also directs users to the sibling tool for current bids. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for read-only purposes).

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