create_budget_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the operation ('Create') and return format (JSON string with ID or error), but does not mention permissions, idempotency, reversibility, or effects on existing schedules. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose, then lists arguments in a clear Args block, and ends with the return value. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundant or filler content.

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 description covers all parameters and the return value, and an output schema is present. However, for a create-type tool with no annotations, it lacks guidance on prerequisites, permissions, or edge cases (e.g., overlapping schedules, budget limits). It is adequate but leaves gaps that an agent would need to infer.

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 must compensate. It does explain each parameter: campaign_id, budget_value, budget_value_type (with 'ABSOLUTE' or 'MULTIPLIER' values), time_start/end (Unix timestamps), and access_token (optional, cached token). However, it leaves ambiguity around what MULTIPLIER means exactly and how budget_value is interpreted for each type, so it is helpful but not complete.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a budget schedule for a Meta Ads campaign.' It clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which mention budget scheduling. The second sentence adds the specific purpose of scheduling increases for high-demand periods.

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 a clear context for when to use the tool: 'Allows scheduling budget increases based on anticipated high-demand periods.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently distinct from the other tools in the list. The optional access_token behavior is also stated.

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