google_ads_bid_adjustments_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool is mutating, uses FieldMask-based partial update (preserving other fields), is reversible, enforces a valid range (0.1-10.0), and raises ValueError for invalid input. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, each packed with essential information. The first sentence conveys purpose and return, the second details behavior, constraints, and alternatives. No redundant or superfluous text.

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 simplicity of the tool (4 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when to use it and when not, effect on other fields, error handling, and reversibility. It is complete without relying on annotations.

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 100%, yet the description adds value beyond the schema: it explains fallback behavior for customer_id, provides source tools for obtaining campaign_id and criterion_id, and interprets bid_modifier values in terms of percentage changes. This enriches the parameter meaning.

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 action ('Update the bid_modifier of a single campaign_criterion') and the return value. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning that for toggling devices on/off, one should use google_ads_device_targeting_set instead. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It states that the tool is reversible and that a bid_modifier of 0.0 is not accepted, directing users to an alternative tool (google_ads_device_targeting_set). This enables correct tool selection.

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