⚠️ Целевое действие: ручная ставка

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that bidPenny and limitPenny are in kopecks, which is useful but minimal. It does not disclose side effects like overriding existing bids or impact of the dryRun parameter beyond schema descriptions.

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 brief at two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded. It clearly separates the primary action from parameter details. However, it lacks structured formatting like bullet points but contains no extraneous text.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and annotations show destructive behavior, the description should explain return values or confirmation. It only covers bid and limit, omitting what the tool returns or how dryRun and idempotencyKey affect behavior. The description is insufficient for a complex mutation 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 coverage is 100% with all parameters documented. The description repeats meanings for bidPenny and limitPenny but adds no new information beyond the schema for other parameters (itemID, actionTypeID, dryRun, idempotencyKey). 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 title 'Целевое действие: ручная ставка' and description 'Применение ручной ставки' clearly indicate the tool applies a manual bid for a target action. It specifies the key parameters (bidPenny, limitPenny) and distinguishes from automated bidding tools like cpa_target_save_auto_bid among siblings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., auto-bid). It lacks contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the AI agent without decision support for tool selection.

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