ebay_update_campaign_budget

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

With only readOnlyHint=false in annotations, the description becomes the primary source for behavioral details significantly more than with richer annotations. It only states 'Update' implying mutation, but does not disclose side effects like whether the budget is fully replaced, whether the endpoint requires a specific authorization scope, or any rate-limiting implications. It adds no context beyond what the annotation already suggests.

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 sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and object and ends with the API context, which is appropriate. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's core purpose.

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?

The tool has no output schema promoted and only a minimal annotation. The description's brevity leaves out critical details such as whether the budget update is a full replacement or partial update, the required structure of the request body (though the schema partially covers this), potential endpoint-specific requirements like needing to pause the campaign first, or any rate-limit constraints. An agent cannot fully understand all invocation requirements from this description alone.

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% (both top-level parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. However, those descriptions are tautological ('campaignId required endpoint parameter', 'Update campaign budget request body') and provide no semantic depth. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. The nested budget object and its fields (daily, amount, currency) have no descriptions at all.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combination: 'Update campaign budget' and identifies the API ('eBay Marketing API'). It clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from similar campaign-related tools like ebay_update_bidding_strategy or ebay_update_campaign_identification, though it does not explicitly name these siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as having an existing campaign or required auth scopes, nor does it state when another tool might be more appropriate (e.g., for updating campaign identification vs budget). The context is implied but no explicit direction is given.

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