ozon_ad_campaign_budget_update

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a PATCH-style mutation and that budgets are in RUBLES, which prevents a common unit error. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, whether daily and weekly budgets can both be set, or what response is returned.

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 description is short and front-loaded, with the core action and HTTP verb in the first clause. The Russian parenthetical 'изменить бюджет' is a minor redundancy, but overall it is efficient and easy to scan.

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 five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter combinations, required-field behavior beyond schema, prerequisites, failure modes, or the result of a successful update, leaving an agent to guess critical invocation details.

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 40%, but the description adds useful semantics by grouping 'budget' with RUBLES and 'period' with the date parameters. It does not clarify campaign_id beyond the schema, optionality constraints, or whether daily and weekly budgets are mutually exclusive, so the low coverage is only partially compensated.

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 states a specific action ('Change campaign budget or period') with an explicit HTTP verb (PATCH), clearly identifying this as a mutation tool for ad campaign budgets. It is distinguished from read-style siblings like ozon_ad_campaign_budget by the verb and wording, though it does not name an alternative directly.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus related ad campaign tools such as ozon_ad_campaign_budget, ozon_ad_campaign_stop, or ozon_ad_campaign_activate. The PATCH verb and RUBLES hint imply intent, but no explicit when/when-not conditions or alternative routing are provided.

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