direct_set_demographics_bid_modifier

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the mutating nature via 'WRITE:' and the safety mechanism 'allow_write=true'. It also adds semantic detail that 0 signifies exclusion. Missing are details about overwrite vs. merge behavior, but the disclosure is strong relative to typical 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 extremely concise—two sentences—and front-loaded with the operation type 'WRITE'. Every piece of information (bid modifier semantics, age examples, allow_write flag) serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 straightforward setter tool with 7 parameters but only 2 required, the description covers the essential aspects: the operation type, key parameter semantics, and the critical write-safety flag. It lacks explicit mention of return values, but no output schema exists, and the description is adequate for a simple mutation tool. Some optional parameters like dry_run are not explained, but these are common patterns across sibling tools.

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 low (29%), so the description compensates by explaining 'BidModifier 0=exclude' and providing concrete age examples like 'AGE_0_17', which add meaning beyond the schema's bare string types. However, other parameters like campaign_id, dry_run, and gender rely on implicit understanding or the schema's enum.

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 it is a WRITE operation for campaign demographics bid modifiers with age and/or gender scope. The verb 'set' is implied by the tool name and description, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like direct_set_device_bid_modifiers and direct_set_bidmodifiers by specifying the target resource.

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?

Provides usage context such as 'BidModifier 0=exclude' and age examples, and mentions 'allow_write=true' as a prerequisite for mutation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like direct_set_bidmodifiers, leaving usage slightly implied rather than ruled.

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