update_campaign_budget

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

The annotations provide destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a mutation operation. The description adds value by specifying it updates the 'daily budget,' which clarifies the scope of the destructive change beyond just 'update.' However, it lacks additional behavioral context such as permission requirements, rate limits, or whether changes are immediate or require approval.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('update the daily budget') without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 destructive annotation and lack of output schema, the description is minimally complete for a budget update tool. It covers the what but misses context like expected outcomes (e.g., confirmation message), error conditions, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., 'list_campaigns' to get IDs).

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all three parameters (campaign_id, platform, daily_budget). The description adds minimal semantics by implying 'daily_budget' is in USD (already in schema) and that it's for updating, but doesn't provide extra details like budget constraints or platform-specific nuances.

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 verb ('update') and resource ('daily budget for a campaign'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pause_campaign' or 'create_*_campaign' tools, which would require mentioning this specifically modifies budget settings rather than campaign status or creation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing campaign), exclusions (e.g., not for paused campaigns), or relationships to siblings like 'get_daily_spend' for checking current budget or 'pause_campaign' for stopping spending.

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