update_tiktok_campaign_budget

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds context beyond the input schema by specifying the minimum budget constraint ('TikTok minimum is $20/day') and the subscription requirement ('Requires Pro plan or higher ($69/mo)'), which are crucial for correct usage. It doesn't cover all potential behavioral aspects (e.g., rate limits, error responses), but provides substantial value.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds critical constraints. There is zero wasted verbiage, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description does a good job of covering key aspects: purpose, constraints, and prerequisites. However, it lacks details on the mutation's effects (e.g., whether changes are immediate, reversible, or have side effects) and expected return values, which would be needed for full completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description adds minimal parameter semantics by reinforcing the minimum budget constraint for 'budget_usd', but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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') and target resource ('a TikTok campaign'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update_meta_campaign_budget' by specifying the TikTok platform. It goes beyond just restating the name/title by adding meaningful context about the budget change.

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 for when to use this tool (to change TikTok campaign budgets) and explicitly mentions prerequisites ('Requires Pro plan or higher ($69/mo)'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., when to use 'update_meta_campaign_budget' instead), which prevents a perfect score.

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