update_meta_campaign_budget

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: immediate effect ('Takes effect immediately'), minimum constraint ('Minimum $1/day'), and permission requirements ('Requires Starter plan or higher'). It doesn't cover rate limits or error conditions, but provides solid operational 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?

Four concise sentences with zero waste—each adds distinct value: action, timing, usage scenarios, constraints, and requirements. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently structured.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of what the tool does, when to use it, and key constraints. It could be more complete by mentioning what happens to existing budget settings or potential side effects, but it's substantially adequate given the context.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it reinforces the minimum budget constraint but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter usage or implications.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Change the daily budget'), resource ('Meta campaign'), and scope ('daily budget'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_meta_campaign or pause_meta_campaign. It goes beyond just restating the name by specifying what aspect of the campaign is being updated.

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 clear context on when to use it ('Increase to scale a winning campaign, decrease to throttle spend') and mentions a prerequisite ('Requires Starter plan or higher'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like update_tiktok_campaign_budget for comparison.

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