direct_set_strategy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the write intent via 'WRITE:' and explains that allow_write=true is required to mutate live cabinets, implying a dry-run mode otherwise. However, it does not describe other behavioral aspects such as side effects, validation errors, or the behavior of the dry_run parameter, which is a notable gap.

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 and well-structured: it front-loads the action ('WRITE:'), lists the enum values, and then gives the key parameter hints. Every phrase earns its place with no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, but the description covers only a fraction of the operational context. It does not explain return values, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., campaign existence), or detailed effects of the strategy preset. While simple, the description is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool without guessing.

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 only 25% (project and allow_write have descriptions), so the description must compensate. It mentions weekly_rub, goal_id, and bid_ceiling as 'as needed,' adding some semantic hint, and repeats allow_write=true. However, it does not explain how these relate to specific modes, nor does it clarify campaign_id or dry_run. Partial compensation for low schema coverage.

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 to set a Search strategy preset, and the enum values in the schema—highest_position, max_conv, max_clicks_network, serving_off_search—are explicitly listed. This distinguishes it from sibling set_* tools like direct_set_max_conv or direct_set_daily_budget, though it could be more explicit about the resource (e.g., 'for a campaign').

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 minimal usage context. It says 'weekly_rub/goal_id/bid_ceiling as needed' but does not explain when these are needed or how they relate to specific modes. It also does not mention when to use this tool instead of alternative strategy setters or other campaign update tools, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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