set_device_bid_adjustment

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

Beyond the annotation (readOnlyHint: false), the description reveals key behaviors: device criterion set creation on first use, Microsoft terminology mapping, and the effect of bid_adjustment values (e.g., -100 excludes the device). This adds significant context for safe usage.

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 concise (3 short sentences plus a recommendation) and front-loaded. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy. It is well-structured, starting with the primary action, then terminology, then behavioral nuance, and finally a usage tip.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown), the description adequately covers core behavioral aspects and parameter details. It lacks mention of error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., campaign existence), but these are minor omissions. Overall, it provides sufficient context 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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining device aliases (mobile -> Smartphones, etc.) and the set creation behavior, which is not in the schema. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's field 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 first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Set a campaign's bid adjustment for one device.' It differentiates from the sibling tool get_device_bid_adjustments by specifying it is a write operation. The description also clarifies Microsoft-specific terminology, leaving no ambiguity.

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 advises to read current values first with get_device_bid_adjustments and explains the set creation behavior (first use creates other devices at neutral 0). This provides clear guidance on when and how to use the tool, including a critical prerequisite.

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