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

Adds context beyond the annotations: the budget is validated against spend guardrails tied to the account, which is genuine operational information an agent cannot see elsewhere. 'WRITES live' largely restates readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description does not say what happens on guardrail failure or whether the change triggers re-review.

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?

Three short sentences front-loaded with the action and scope, then the prerequisite and the write warning. No sentence is padding.

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 destructive write with no output schema, it covers the action, the required account, the guardrail validation, and that it writes live. It stops short of describing side effects such as learning-phase reset, review, or the failure mode when a budget exceeds guardrails.

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%, so entity_id (campaign CBO vs ad set), daily_budget in major units, and the required meta_account_id are already fully documented. The description adds only the rationale for the account parameter, not new semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: changing the daily budget and/or renaming an existing campaign or ad set. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like pause_campaigns, update_adset_schedule, or delete_campaigns without needing the schema.

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?

Implies usage ('existing campaign or ad set') and gives one prerequisite (account required for guardrail check), but offers no when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives such as create_campaign or get_guardrails, and no exclusions for entities of other types.

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