ebay_bulk_update_ads_bid_by_inventory_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update bid percentages', which implies mutation but does not clarify side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing bids, requires active ads, or has limits on batch size). It also omits any mention of permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. The description is too minimal for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It is concise, contains no extraneous information, and communicates the essential purpose and restriction efficiently. Every word 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?

Given the tool's complexity (bulk update with nested array) and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the response format, error handling, or limitations (e.g., maximum number of requests). The agent lacks critical information about what to expect after invocation. Completeness is inadequate for a bulk operation.

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 100%, meaning all parameters (campaignId, ads, requests, bidPercentage, inventoryReferenceId, inventoryReferenceType) have descriptions in the input schema. The description adds only the context 'CPS campaigns only', which qualifies campaignId usage but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high 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 the verb 'Update', the resource 'bid percentages for multiple ads by inventory reference', and a specific condition 'CPS campaigns only'. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like ebay_bulk_update_ads_bid_by_listing_id and ebay_bulk_update_ads_status, which target different identifiers or actions.

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 explicitly restricts usage to 'CPS campaigns only', providing clear context for when to use this tool. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the naming convention of sibling tools implies that other update variants (e.g., by listing ID) are available for non-CPS scenarios. The guidance is sufficient but could be more explicit about exclusions.

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