Sets the budget for a Meta Ads campaign (CBO) or ad set in account currency, with daily/lifetime options and optional confirmation before applying.
Change the budget of a campaign (CBO) or ad set, in the account currency's major units (e.g. 50 = $50).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| object_id | Yes | ||
| budget_type | No | daily_budget |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety bar is partly met, but the description says nothing about irreversibility, the meaning of the `confirm` flag, or what happens if confirm is false. The only added context is the currency-units convention (50 = $50), which is useful but leaves the destructive-confirmation flow undisclosed.
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 no filler, and the unit convention is stated inline where it is most needed.
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?
Output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a destructive mutation with an explicit `confirm` gate and zero schema coverage, the definition is too thin to call safely. It should explain the confirm requirement and what object_id accepts.
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% across 4 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only clarifies `amount` units; `object_id`, `confirm`, and `budget_type` (despite having an enum) are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 the budget of a campaign (CBO) or ad set', and clarifies the CBO scope. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling google_ads_set_campaign_budget, but the Meta-vs-Google context makes the target surface reasonably inferable.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus meta_update_entity or the Google Ads budget siblings, and no mention of prerequisites or the conditions under which a budget can be changed. The agent must infer everything about selection and preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.