ads_set_ad_group_bid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that this is a 'Money change' and explains the dry-run vs. apply behavior via the confirm flag: 'must be true to apply (else dry-run).' This is meaningful behavioral context for a mutating financial operation, though it does not address permissions, reversibility, or side effects.

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 tightly structured: a one-sentence purpose, a short 'Money change' flag, and a clean argument list with inline explanations. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 moderate complexity, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential details: the operation, the manual-bidding restriction, the monetary impact, the dry-run confirmation behavior, and all parameters. It does not state permission requirements or potential side effects, but the available context is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. Every parameter is explained: customer_id as a 10-digit account id, ad_group_id as the ad group id, cpc_bid as the new max CPC in account currency with an example, and confirm as the required flag to apply versus dry-run. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Set an ad group's default max CPC bid,' with the important qualifier 'manual bidding only.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ads_set_campaign_bidding_strategy, ads_update_campaign_budget, or ads_set_campaign_status, and the 'Money change' tag reinforces that it is a mutating monetary operation.

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 gives a clear usage condition: 'manual bidding only,' which tells the agent when this tool applies and implicitly when it should not be used. It does not name explicit alternatives or contrast with sibling bid-related tools, so it falls short of full guidance, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to select it.

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