switch_bidding_strategy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing safety behavior. It does disclose that the tool defaults to a dry run and requires confirm=True to execute, which is critical for preventing unintended changes. However, it does not cover other behavioral aspects like permissions or reversibility, but the key safety behavior is well highlighted.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the important dry-run behavior. No filler or redundancy, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 rich input schema with 100% coverage and the presence of an output schema, the description's brevity is acceptable. It provides the essential behavioral context (dry run) that is not in the schema. It could have summarized conditional parameter relationships, but the schema already handles that, so the description is sufficiently complete for a well-informed agent.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters, including conditional dependencies such as target_cpa for TARGET_CPA and max_cpc_limit for MAXIMIZE_CLICKS. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Change a campaign's bidding strategy.' It identifies a specific action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_campaign_budget or update_campaign_status. The dry-run note adds clarity about execution behavior, reinforcing purpose.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as update_campaign_budget or create_campaign. It does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the action verb.

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