direct.hf.set_campaign_budget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that unsupported cases return a patch hint; it says nothing about permissions, whether the mutation is immediate or gated by apply/dry_run, or what the return value actually looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler beyond the somewhat vague 'Human-friendly:' prefix. It is compact, though arguably too terse for an eight-parameter mutation tool.

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 an eight-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It omits the meaning of mode/apply/dry_run, account resolution, and campaign targeting rules, so an agent lacks what it needs to invoke it safely and correctly.

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 only 25% and six parameters (mode, apply, dry_run, campaign_id, campaign_name, daily_budget_rub) lack schema-level explanation. The description restates the budget parameter's currency but adds no meaning for mode, apply, or dry_run, leaving the agent to guess how to call this tool correctly.

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 (set campaign daily budget) with currency unit, and implies a fallback behavior. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from generic siblings like direct.update_campaigns, but the budget focus is clear enough.

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?

Gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives such as direct.update_campaigns or direct.raw_call. The 'if supported, else returns patch hint' clause describes fallback behavior, not usage context.

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