google_ads_set_campaign_budget

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation risk profile is covered. The description adds genuine context by defining the budget unit and currency (50 = $50/day), which annotations cannot express. It stops short of saying the previous budget is overwritten, whether the change is immediate/irreversible, or what confirm does.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core meaning and the unit example in parentheses; nothing is wasted. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but structurally it is clean.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with five undocumented parameters and a confirm gate, this is thin. There is an output schema, so return values need not be described, but confirmation behavior, currency-mismatch risk and per-account scoping (login_customer_id) are all absent.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only clarifies daily_budget's unit and example. customer_id, campaign_id, login_customer_id and especially confirm – the only non-required, non-obvious parameter – are left entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Change a campaign's daily budget") and adds the unit convention, so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from the nearby siblings (meta_set_budget, google_ads_set_ad_group_cpc_bid), so scope differentiation is left to the tool name alone.

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 when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of prerequisites or the sibling alternatives that also set budgets or bids. Critically, the confirm parameter is never mentioned, so the agent gets no guidance on that gate.

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