set_campaign_daily_budget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals two important non-obvious behaviors: the tool refuses when the budget is shared, and it runs as a dry run unless confirm=true. It does not detail error responses or permission requirements, but the core safety semantics are disclosed.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first, followed by the two most decision-relevant caveats: shared-budget refusal and the confirm-required dry-run flow.

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 the presence of an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral context: operation, currency, refusal condition, and confirmation requirement. Minor gaps remain around explicit sibling differentiation and ID parameter meaning, but the tool is callable correctly with the provided information.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies daily_budget is in account currency and confirm controls dry-run vs. execution. However, customer_id and campaign_id are left unexplained beyond their names, which are self-evident but still undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Set a campaign's daily budget', and adds 'account currency' for precision. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_campaign_target_cpa and set_campaign_cpc_ceiling, which deal with bids rather than budgets.

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 gives clear operational context: this tool sets a daily budget, requires confirmation for execution, and refuses shared-budget scenarios. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope is unambiguous enough for correct selection.

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