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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real context beyond them: the proposal stays pending, it is capped at 20% of current daily budget, and it does not mutate until a separate confirm call. It does not mention the dry_run or confirm parameters even though they exist in the schema.

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?

Four sentences, no waste, front-loaded with the action, followed by ID sourcing, the 20% constraint, and the confirmation gate. Each sentence adds decision-relevant information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the core propose-then-confirm flow is covered. However, with 34 optional parameters at 0% coverage, an agent is still left guessing which fields (to_amount, platform, dry_run) actually matter for this operation, which is a notable gap for a tool of this complexity.

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% with 34 parameters, and the description clarifies only campaign_id and the account id (google_customer_id/meta_ad_account_id). The remaining ~30 parameters, including to_amount, dry_run, and confirm, receive no explanation, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a pending daily-budget change') scoped to Google/Meta campaigns, and the word 'propose' cleanly distinguishes it from automate_confirm_action and automate_propose_pause. An agent can identify it without opening 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?

It explains the workflow: pull campaign_id and the account id from the *_get_campaigns rows, then confirm later via automate_confirm_action with confirm=true. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer automate_propose_pause, but the sequencing and prerequisites are clear.

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