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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that the tool moves real money, always requires human approval, and every call needs per-send manager approval queuing its own approval card. This is rich behavioral context beyond what annotations would provide.

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 two paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose, then approval details. It is concise but could be slightly tighter; every sentence earns its place. Minor redundancy in the approval block.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, behavioral constraints, and approval process well. It mentions structural cap but does not explain it, and lacks return value or error details. Still fairly complete for a mutation tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates 'account currency, major units' already in the schema. No extra semantic value for parameters.

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 'Change the daily budget of a Meta ad set', which is a specific verb+resource. It adds clarifying details like account currency, major units, and structural cap, and distinguishes it from siblings like set_meta_ad_status by focusing on budget changes.

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 says 'Use when the user explicitly asks to raise or lower spend on a campaign' and notes that agents cannot change budgets, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It lacks mention of specific sibling alternatives but effectively sets usage context.

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