Campaigns Update Campaign Budget

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

Annotations already convey destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the two-phase commit behavior ('Needs confirm=true to apply'), implying that without confirm the change is only previewed. This helps an agent understand that invocation without confirmation won't mutate state, which annotations alone do not capture.

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 sentences, 15 words, with the core action front-loaded and the critical behavioral gate (confirm=true) stated immediately after. Every clause earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a destructive update tool with a 6-parameter schema at 100% coverage, an output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers the one critical behavioral nuance an agent must know (the confirm gate). It could additionally clarify interplay between validate_only and confirm, but the schema already documents both fields, so the description is adequately complete.

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 every parameter (confirm, budget_id, customer_id, daily_amount, validate_only, login_customer_id) is already documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail. Per calibration, the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource: 'Changes the daily amount of an existing budget.' It clearly identifies the target (budget daily amount) and distinguishes itself from siblings like campaigns_create_campaign_budget (creation) and campaigns_set_campaign_status (status changes). It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it loses the top point, but the action is unambiguous.

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 offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like campaigns_create_campaign_budget or campaigns_update_campaign. The 'Needs confirm=true to apply' is a prerequisite, not a usage-context signal. No exclusions, no alternative routing, and no conditions are provided.

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