wb_advert_budget

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing beyond a noun phrase. It does not state whether the operation is read-only or mutating (a real concern given mutation siblings like wb_advert_bids_set and wb_advert_pause), what it returns, or what happens on invalid input. This reads as a data-dictionary label, not a behavioral description.

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 with no wasted words, but this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. The parenthetical Russian translation adds no information for an agent, and the single sentence could have conveyed the operation type and parameter meaning at the same length.

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?

The tool is low-complexity (one integer parameter, no output schema, no annotations), which lowers the bar for completeness, yet the description still omits the operation type, semantics of 'budget' (spend limit vs. current spend), and return value. An agent cannot determine whether calling this tool has side effects or how to interpret the result. The description is inadequate even for a minimal one-parameter tool.

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 0% and the sole parameter advert_id has no inline documentation, so the description must compensate. 'One ad campaign' only implicitly ties the integer parameter to a campaign identifier; it never names advert_id, explains how to obtain a valid value, or clarifies that it is required. The compensation is minimal and indirect.

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 names the resource ('budget of one ad campaign') and narrows scope to a single campaign, which partially distinguishes it from list-level siblings like wb_advert_list. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, so it never states whether the tool retrieves, sets, or updates the budget. It borders on tautology with the tool name wb_advert_budget and does not disambiguate from finance-related siblings like wb_advert_costs or wb_advert_balance.

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 the many similar advertising siblings, including wb_advert_balance, wb_advert_costs, wb_advert_stats, and wb_advert_payments. No context, conditions, recommended alternatives, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to guess which advertising finance tool fits its intent.

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