synter-mcp-server

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, implying a mutation, which aligns with 'update'. However, the description doesn't disclose additional traits like permission requirements, rate limits, or whether changes are immediate/irreversible, missing opportunities to enhance transparency for a destructive operation.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words, efficiently conveying the core action. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a straightforward update tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on success (e.g., confirmation, updated object) or failure (e.g., errors for invalid budgets), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like side effects, leaving gaps for a mutation tool with significant impact.

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 input schema fully documents all three parameters (campaign_id, platform, daily_budget), including enum values for platform. The description adds no extra semantic details about parameters, such as budget constraints or ID formats, so it meets the baseline but doesn't provide additional 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 clearly states the action ('update') and resource ('daily budget for a campaign'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pause_campaign' or budget-related operations in creation tools, but the specificity is sufficient for understanding the core function.

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., campaign must exist, budget limits), exclusions (e.g., cannot update paused campaigns), or related tools like 'get_daily_spend' for checking current budgets, leaving usage context unclear.

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