⚠️ Target action: manual bid

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

Adds significant value beyond annotations: warns of budget impact, explains charging (bidPenny) and daily cap (limitPenny), states mutual exclusivity with auto bid, and mentions rate limit (20 requests/min). Annotations only indicate destructive, but description gives concrete behavioral details.

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 a single paragraph that efficiently packs essential information without redundancy. Uses warning symbols for attention. Could be slightly more structured, but all sentences earn their place.

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 and no output schema, the description covers the action's effect, dependencies (minBidPenny), rate limit, and alternatives. It omits details about response format, but the main behavioral aspects are well covered.

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%, but description adds extra context: bidPenny must be at least minBidPenny from cpa_target_get_bids, limitPenny optional, and explains dryRun and idempotencyKey. This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states it sets a manual fixed target-action bid for a listing. Uses specific verb 'sets' and resource 'manual target-action bid'. Distinguishes from sibling tool cpa_target_save_auto_bid by contrasting manual vs auto.

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 says when to use: 'when you want to control the per-action price yourself' and when not: 'to delegate the choice to Avito, use save_auto_bid'. Also notes it overwrites any auto strategy, providing clear context for tool selection.

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