⚠️ Target action: auto bid

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but description adds specific warnings: 'affects budget spending (money)', 'overwrites any previously set manual strategy'. It provides behavioral context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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?

Description is short but packed with information: purpose, warning, behavior, alternatives, constraints. No superfluous text. Well-structured with emoji alert and clear sentences.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, constraints, side effects, limits, and category restriction. It provides complete guidance for an agent.

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 parameters are well-documented in schema. The description adds cross-reference: budgetPenny must fall within min/max from another tool, which is not in schema. This adds value beyond schema.

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 enables automatic target-action bidding, specifies the system picks the price, and distinguishes it from manual bidding. It uses a specific verb ('Enables') and names the resource ('AUTOMATIC target-action bidding strategy').

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('delegate price management to Avito') and when not to (use save_manual_bid instead). Also mentions mutual exclusivity, budgetPenny constraints from another tool, 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.