Draft: update a campaign's daily budget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains that this is a draft operation and that the actual change requires confirm_write. This is important behavioral context. It could additionally state that no changes are applied until confirmation, but the phrase 'to actually apply it' covers this.

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?

Two concise sentences with no waste. The action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds critical workflow information about the returned draftId and next step.

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, the description provides necessary output info (draftId) and the follow-up step. It doesn't cover prerequisites like campaign existence or permission requirements, but for a draft operation with simple parameters, it is reasonably complete. A 5 would require more detail on error conditions or limitations.

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?

The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. The schema describes campaignId but not newDailyBudgetDollars, and the description only references 'daily budget amount' generically. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter or clarify constraints like units or positivity.

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 specifies the verb 'draft changing', the resource 'daily budget amount for an existing campaign', and that it returns a draftId. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_campaign_status (which directly changes status) and create_campaign (which creates a campaign).

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 instructs to call confirm_write to apply the change, establishing a two-step workflow. It implies this tool is for drafting changes, not applying them, which is useful guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though no direct budget update sibling exists.

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