ads_set_campaign_bidding_strategy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that only the bidding strategy field is updated, switching resets the previous one, and the operation is bid-affecting; it also surfaces the confirmation/dry-run mechanism. It could add permission/reversibility info, but these are substantial disclosures.

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 front-loaded with the main verb and scope, followed by a compact behavioral note and a clearly formatted Args list. Every sentence adds operational value without padding.

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?

For a mutation with seven parameters and no required fields declared in the schema, the description covers every caller decision: strategy choices, conditional targets, the mandatory ceiling for TARGET_SPEND, and the confirmation requirement. An output schema exists, so return semantics need not be spelled out.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It defines all seven parameters, lists the allowed bidding_strategy values, explains optional targets, and calls out that cpc_ceiling is required for TARGET_SPEND because Google rejects an unset ceiling. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Change') and identifies the exact resource: an existing campaign's standard (non-portfolio) bidding strategy. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ads_set_campaign_status or ads_update_campaign_budget and clarifies that portfolio strategies are out of scope.

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?

It clearly frames the tool for changing standard campaign bidding strategies and states that confirm=false performs a dry-run while true applies the change. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for portfolio strategies or related ad-group bid changes, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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