Update keyword

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

The description clearly states the mutation effect (change status and/or bid) and does not contradict annotations such as readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. It adds modest behavioral context like currency units and identifier sourcing, though it does not describe side effects beyond the mutation itself.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states purpose and parameters, the second gives identifier sourcing. Well organized and front-loaded.

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?

Sufficient for a mutation tool with no output schema: it states what will change, which fields are involved, and how to identify the target keyword. Minor gap: it does not explicitly state that at least one of status or cpc_bid must be provided, though 'and/or' implies this.

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 description adds meaning for ad_group_id and criterion_id by pointing to keyword_performance, and reinforces that cpc_bid is in currency units. Schema already covers customer_id and status enum values, but ad_group_id and criterion_id formats are not detailed.

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?

States a specific action (change status and/or max CPC bid) on a specific resource (keyword) and identifies the keyword via ad_group_id and criterion_id from keyword_performance. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_ad_status, add_keywords, or remove_resource.

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?

Provides useful context for sourcing identifiers from keyword_performance, implying use after listing keywords. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as add_keywords, remove_resource, or set_ad_status, so when to use this tool versus alternatives is only implicit.

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