Set Campaign Budget

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a real constraint (value must stay "within the cap and max increase"), hinting the call can fail on out-of-range values, but it says nothing about the mutation's irreversibility, what happens on partial failure, or why the optional confirm_token exists.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the action and resource, and the parenthetical currency note earns its place. It is under-informative rather than padded, so its brevity is efficient though it leaves gaps elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a four-parameter mutating tool with zero annotations, the description omits permission requirements, the role of confirm_token, and the failure behavior when limits are exceeded — too much is missing for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies daily_amount's unit and range limits, but customer_id, campaign_budget_id, and especially the optional confirm_token (a mutation-safety parameter whose semantics are entirely undisclosed) receive no explanation.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Change a campaign's daily budget") and specifies the unit is the account currency, which separates it from siblings like set_campaign_manual_cpc and set_campaign_status. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from other campaign-mutation tools, but the action and target are unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of prerequisites such as required permissions or the need to obtain a confirm token first. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the verb and the sibling names.

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