⚠️ Target action: auto bid

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds that it affects budget spending (money) and overwrites any manual strategy. It also mentions the dryRun parameter for safe preview. No contradiction with annotations; the description provides extra context on side effects.

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 about 4-5 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then warnings, usage guidance, constraints, and limitations. Every sentence adds value, though the emojis and 'WARNING' add a bit of fluff. It is concise and well-structured.

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, usage guidelines, side effects, constraints, and limitations. The only missing element is the return value since there is no output schema, but for a save operation this is less critical. Overall, it is fairly complete for an agent to decide and use the tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds a constraint linking budgetPenny to an external endpoint (min/max from cpa_target_get_bids) and explains dryRun/idempotencyKey further, but this is minimal added value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Enables the AUTOMATIC target-action bidding strategy,' clearly stating the tool's function. It contrasts with save_manual_bid, a sibling tool, and specifies that it sets a spend of budgetPenny per budgetType period, distinguishing its 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?

The description explicitly advises when to use this tool ('Use it when you want to delegate price management to Avito') and when not to (mutually exclusive with manual bid, should use save_manual_bid for manual). It also mentions prerequisites (budgetPenny within min/max from cpa_target_get_bids), category restriction (not in Transport), and rate limit (10 req/min).

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