⚠️ Target action: manual bid

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context: it warns that the call affects budget spending, charges per action, and overwrites any auto strategy. However, it does not mention the dryRun parameter or idempotency behavior, which could be relevant for safe usage. Still, it provides sufficient behavioral context beyond 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 five sentences, front-loaded with the action and a clear warning. Every sentence earns its place: action, budget warning, exclusivity, usage guidance, prerequisite, rate limit. No extraneous information, 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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, 3 required, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, prerequisites, and rate limits. It integrates well with related tools (save_auto_bid, get_bids). The schema handles parameter details, so the description fills the remaining context gaps effectively.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the prerequisite from the schema for bidPenny and mentions limitPenny's role, but adds no new information beyond the schema. The mutual exclusivity context is behavioral, not parameter-specific. Thus, no significant additional parameter clarity.

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 sets a manual target-action bid for a listing. It uses a specific verb 'Sets' and identifies the resource as 'manual bid'. It directly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'cpa_target_save_auto_bid' by noting mutual exclusivity and overwriting. The title and description both reinforce the action.

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 states when to use the tool ('when you want to control the per-action price yourself') and when not to (providing the alternative 'save_auto_bid'). It also includes a prerequisite (bidPenny >= minBidPenny from cpa_target_get_bids) and a rate limit (20 req/min). This provides complete guidance for selection and invocation.

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