Campaigns Create Campaign Budget

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the workflow context 'Do this before create_campaign' but no additional behavioral details such as side effects, duplicate handling, or validation behavior. This is acceptable because the annotations carry the safety profile, but the description adds only minimal extra context.

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 two short sentences with no redundant wording. The primary action is stated first, and the prerequisite is added in a single, clear follow-up sentence. Every word 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?

Given that the schema fully documents all parameters and an output schema exists, the description only needs to convey purpose and workflow context, which it does. The prerequisite relationship with create_campaign is a key piece of context that is present. It could be slightly more complete by naming the update alternative, but it is not a significant gap.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the input schema, including constraints like the daily amount cap and unique budget name. The description itself adds no parameter-level information, so it meets the baseline for a fully documented schema without adding extra value.

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 ('Creates') and resource ('campaign budget'), making the core function clear. It also signals the relationship to campaigns_create_campaign by saying 'Do this before create_campaign,' which helps distinguish it from the campaign creation sibling. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from campaigns_update_campaign_budget, relying on the name to carry that distinction.

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 provides a clear usage condition: create the budget before creating a campaign. This is valuable sequencing guidance. It does not mention when to use an alternative like campaigns_update_campaign_budget, but the prerequisite context is sufficient to guide basic usage.

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