Set Daily Limits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely important trait: limits are per-campaign but consume a shared per-account ceiling, so raising one affects others. It omits permissions required, whether changes are reversible, and what a null limit value does (clear vs. no-op), leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the prerequisite and the side-effect warning. Every sentence earns its place.

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 values need not be described, and the shared-ceiling caveat is valuable. But with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves the agent under-informed about an operation whose null-valued parameters are ambiguous.

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 description never explains campaign_id, daily_message_limit, or daily_connection_limit. The nullable-with-null-default parameters in particular need semantics that neither the schema nor the description supply.

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 (change a campaign's daily limits), which is unambiguous against siblings like set_campaign_status or get_account_budget. It does not, however, distinguish itself from other mutation tools beyond the named prerequisite.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to check get_account_budget first, naming the sibling and the ordering constraint. There is no when-not guidance or mention of what happens on failure, so it falls short of a 5.

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