create_portfolio_bidding_strategy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key trait — this is a draft, not an immediately applied operation — and the account-shared scope. But it does not explain the target_cpa/strategy_type interplay, permissions, or what the returned draft contains. The 'Live-verified 2026-07-30' line is non-functional noise.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then enum values, then workflow. The verification timestamp adds marginal noise but does not impede readability.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the definition must stand alone. It covers purpose, scope, valid types, and the draft-then-apply flow, but leaves target_cpa usage conditions and the draft response shape unstated. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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. It documents the strategy_type allowed values, which is genuinely additive. But target_cpa is left unexplained — notably that it matters mainly for MaxConversions — and name is self-evident, so compensation is only partial.

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 verb (draft) + resource (portfolio bid strategy) plus scope (account library, shared across campaigns). It also enumerates the valid strategy_type values. This clearly differentiates it from the many other draft_* siblings by resource type.

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 a useful workflow hint: creates a draft that must be applied via confirm_and_apply. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose a portfolio-level strategy vs. campaign-level bidding (e.g., update_ad_group/update_campaign), and no explicit exclusions.

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