ads.budget.updateUpdate a campaign budget amount in micros with a guarded confirmation step, using customer and budget IDs to apply precise changes safely.
Update a campaign budget amount in micros (guarded).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| budget_id | Yes | ||
| customer_id | Yes | ||
| amount_micros | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool. It never explains what '(guarded)' means, what the confirm parameter does, whether the change is reversible, or what happens if confirm is omitted — leaving the most consequential behavior undocumented.
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 sentence with no waste and the core action front-loaded. Its brevity is part of the problem elsewhere, but as a structural matter there is nothing to trim and nothing buried.
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 a four-parameter mutation with zero annotation coverage and no schema descriptions, the definition is under-specified. An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but the guard mechanism, required identifiers, and failure behavior are all absent.
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 coverage is 0% across four parameters. The description does add real meaning for amount_micros by naming the unit, which prevents a million-fold scaling error, but customer_id, budget_id, and especially the opaque confirm parameter are undocumented in both schema and description.
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: update a campaign budget amount, with the unit (micros) named. An agent can identify what the tool does, but nothing distinguishes it from adjacent write tools such as ads.campaign.set_status, and the parenthetical '(guarded)' is left unexplained.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus ads.campaign.set_status or meridian.budget.optimize, and no prerequisites (permissions, whether the budget must already exist). The single word 'guarded' hints that a safety gate exists but never says what triggers it or how to satisfy it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.