Place a bid on a project

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that the bid is real, consumes a finite monthly resource, is immediately visible to the employer, and that a malformed budget will be rejected. It also surfaces the authorization nuance ('on behalf of the token owner'), which is exactly the kind of behavioral context that helps an agent invoke the tool safely.

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?

Three focused sentences front-load the most important facts: the action is real, it has resource and visibility consequences, and user confirmation is required. The API quirk about `budget` is included without any padding. Every sentence earns its 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?

The description covers the action, its side effects, the need for user confirmation, and a key API constraint, which is quite complete for a mutation tool. The only notable gap is that it does not describe what a successful response looks like, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. Still, an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 high at 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description reinforces the `budget` object requirement, but the schema already states 'Must be an object, not a bare number,' so this is largely redundant. It does not add substantial new meaning for the other parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb ('Places') and resource ('a real bid on behalf of the token owner'), and immediately distinguishes this from other bid-related tools by emphasizing it is a real, consequential action rather than a dry-run or management action. The phrase 'real bid' and the consequence framing make it unmistakable what this tool does.

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 clearly states when to call it: only after confirming amount, duration, and comment with the user, because bids are a finite monthly resource and visible to the employer immediately. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context it provides is sufficient for an agent to decide this is the right action for placing a new bid.

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