Change the daily budget (and/or rename) of an existing campaign or ad set. The account is required so the new budget is checked against your spend guardrails. WRITES live.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Optional new name. | |
| entity_id | Yes | Campaign ID (CBO budget) or ad set ID. | |
| daily_budget | No | New daily budget, MAJOR units (e.g. 500 = ₹500). | |
| meta_account_id | Yes | REQUIRED — the ad account this entity belongs to (for the guardrail check). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false), the description adds 'WRITES live' and mentions the guardrail check, giving the agent important behavioral context about live updates and validation. This adds value beyond the structured data.
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 with three sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or filler.
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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, guardrail integration, and parameter specifics. It is complete enough for an agent to understand usage without missing critical context.
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%, but the description adds meaning by specifying that daily_budget is in 'MAJOR units' and that meta_account_id is needed for the guardrail check. This enhances understanding beyond the schema definitions.
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 tool changes daily budget and/or renames an existing campaign or ad set. The verb 'change' and specific resource distinguish it from siblings like create_campaign or pause_campaigns.
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 explains that the account is required for guardrail checks, providing context for when the tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for related tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but creation tools (create_campaign, bulk_create_campaigns, create_structured, add_ad_to_adset) overlap in scope, potentially causing misselection. However, descriptions clarify differences.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, such as 'bulk_create_campaigns', 'get_insights', 'pause_campaigns'. No mixing of conventions.
23 tools cover the Meta Ads domain well, but the count is slightly high. Most tools are justified, though some could be merged (e.g., creation variants).
Core CRUD is covered for campaigns and ads, but there is no tool to create an ad set independently (only via create_structured). Creative editing and standalone ad set creation are missing, leaving notable gaps.