⚠️ Целевое действие: авто-ставка

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description states it applies auto-bid settings, which aligns but does not disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., overwrites existing settings, rate limits, or side effects). No contradiction with 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 a single sentence plus parameter list, which is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. No extraneous information. The emoji is decorative but not harmful.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not hint at the return value (e.g., success indication, updated bid settings). It also omits error conditions, preconditions, or what happens on failure. For a tool with 4 required parameters and destructive behavior, more context is needed.

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% with detailed descriptions for all six parameters. The description's parameter notes (budgetPenny in kopeks, budgetType see swagger, actionTypeID) add no new meaning beyond the schema, making them redundant.

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 explicitly states 'Применение автоматической настройки ставки' (Applying automatic bid setting), which clearly identifies the verb (apply/save) and resource (auto bid). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'cpa_target_save_manual_bid' which handles manual bidding.

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 implies use for automatic bidding through the term 'автоматической', and the sibling tool 'cpa_target_save_manual_bid' suggests an alternative. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus manual bidding, or any prerequisites or context.

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