Обновить кампанию

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

The description exposes a genuinely important and non-obvious behavior: the API requires the budget mode to be sent with the budget amount, and if the mode is omitted, the tool reads and preserves the current mode via campaigns/get. It also clarifies that changing the amount does not change the spending pace. This is valuable context beyond what the annotations and schema provide.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and contains only relevant information about the API's budget-mode requirement. It is somewhat long and dense as a single sentence, and splitting it into two sentences would slightly improve readability, but every clause adds value.

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 the primary update capabilities and, importantly, the tricky API behavior around budget mode. It does not mention negativeKeywords in the high-level purpose list, but the schema fully documents that field, so the major gap is contextual guidance rather than parameter coverage.

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?

Since the schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already documents individual parameters well. The description adds cross-parameter semantics that are not derivable from the schema alone, particularly the coupling between dailyBudgetAmount and dailyBudgetMode and the fallback behavior when the mode is omitted.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it updates a campaign's name, end date, and/or daily budget, and it references the underlying API method. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings such as campaign_action or the update_* tools, so it slightly misses the strongest purpose clarity.

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 guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings or when to use an alternative instead. Usage must be inferred from the field list, so the description leaves this dimension under-specified.

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