Adjust many budgets

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

Annotations already declare the write/non-idempotent/open-world profile; the description adds real value beyond them by naming the confirm='APPLY' gate tied to PINTEREST_ADS_BULK_THRESHOLD, PINTEREST_ADS_MAX_INCREASE_PCT, and PINTEREST_ADS_MAX_BUDGET, plus the Pinterest rejection of sub-1.00 USD daily increases. This is exactly the guardrail context an agent needs before a bulk mutation. It doesn't describe partial-failure behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one clause, followed by grouped parameter and guardrail notes with no filler. The parenthetical mapping and threshold sentence are dense but each earns its place. Structure is slightly ragged, with mixed inline parentheticals rather than clean separation of modes versus preconditions.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers mode selection, parameters, and confirmation thresholds for a 7-parameter bulk mutation. The gaps are the undocumented 'ids' input (how many, what happens on invalid IDs) and whether a bulk run is all-or-nothing or partially applied.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it defines entity values, budget modes, the meaning and example of change_pct (15 = +15%) and set_budget (40 = account currency), and the confirm token. However, 'ids' and 'ad_account_id' are never explained, leaving two of seven parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 with scope: 'Change many campaign or ad group budgets at once'. The entity mapping (campaigns -> daily_spend_cap/lifetime_spend_cap, ad_groups -> budget_in_micro_currency) makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like pinterest_ads_update_campaigns or pinterest_ads_set_statuses.

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 explicit usage conditions: pick 'campaigns' or 'ad_groups' via entity, then either pass change_pct for a relative change or set_budget for an absolute value in account currency. It also states prerequisites (confirm='APPLY' above env thresholds) and a Pinterest-side constraint. It doesn't explicitly say when to use this versus the single-object update tools, but the bulk framing makes that inference easy.

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