google_ads_update_bidding_strategy

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond basic functionality. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether updating a field resets others), permissions required, or the impact of partial updates. The returns section says 'Success message with updated configuration' but lacks detail on the response structure.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and an Example section. The initial sentence is clear. However, the Args list is somewhat verbose for a tool with 7 parameters; it could potentially be streamlined without losing clarity.

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 all 7 parameters and includes an example. An output schema exists but is not detailed; the description mentions 'Success message with updated configuration,' which suffices. Missing guidance on optimal parameter combinations for different strategy types, but overall adequate for a simple update tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must fully explain parameters. It adds meaning by describing each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'New target CPA in currency units') and linking them to strategy types. However, it could be more precise (e.g., specifying currency or decimal format for target_roas).

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 'Update an existing portfolio bidding strategy's settings,' which indicates the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_bidding_strategy' and 'assign_bidding_strategy,' but could emphasize the 'portfolio' aspect more strongly to differentiate from other update tools.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_bidding_strategy' or 'assign_bidding_strategy.' There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the strategy must exist) or conditions for using specific parameters.

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