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

Despite annotations already marking this as destructive and idempotent, the description adds critical context: the change affects EVERY linked campaign, the response reports how many, a more-than-doubling change is refused unless allowLargeChange is true, and the previous amount is returned for restoration. This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail an agent needs before invoking a mutation.

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 five short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the guardrail, then return behavior and safety guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted phrasing.

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 a mutation tool with annotations, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential gaps: side effects on linked campaigns, the large-change guardrail, dryRun usage, and return value. An agent has enough to call it correctly and safely.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, including dryRun and allowLargeChange. The description reinforces the large-change behavior but does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: changing a shared budget's daily amount. It also clarifies the scope by explaining that every campaign linked to the budget is affected, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like msads_set_campaign_budget or msads_create_shared_budget.

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 clear usage guidance: use dryRun first when unsure, and large changes require allowLargeChange. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus the campaign-budget sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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