direct_set_device_bid_modifiers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the write nature, defines the BidModifier value scale (0=off, 100=default, etc.), and warns about a specific conflict (Desktop may 6000-conflict if Mobile=0). This is valuable behavioral context, though it does not cover error handling or response format.

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, using a few terse sentences to convey the core behavior, value mapping, and an important edge case. Every sentence adds value, and the 'WRITE' prefix immediately signals the operation type.

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?

The description covers the essential operational details for a 7-parameter tool with no output schema. It explains the key parameter semantics, the write flag, and a conflict scenario. However, it does not explain dry_run behavior or the project parameter, leaving some gaps for a complete agent understanding.

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%), and the description compensates well by explaining the meaning of mobile/tablet/desktop values and the 'ONE field per API call' rule. It also clarifies allow_write semantics, which is only partially covered in the 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 uses 'WRITE: campaign device bid mods' which clearly states the action (write) and the resource (device bid modifiers for a campaign). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying 'ONE field per API call (Mobile/Tablet/Desktop)'.

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 gives clear context on how to use the tool, including the constraint of one field per call and the necessity of allow_write=true. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling context (e.g., direct_set_bidmodifiers) makes the specific use case clear.

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