Обновить кампанию

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

Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only behavior, yet the description adds a non-obvious hidden side effect: an implicit campaigns/get to fetch the current budget mode before writing, plus the guarantee that changing the amount does not alter delivery pacing. Money-affecting semantics and a hidden read call are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first identifies the operation, the second covers the tricky parameter interaction and its user-visible consequence. No filler, no restatement of the title, useful detail front-loaded.

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?

With 7 parameters fully documented in the schema, annotations covering the safety profile, and no output schema to explain, the description fills the only real gap — the budget-mode read-and-preserve behavior. An agent can invoke this correctly without further information.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3; the description earns above that by explaining the coupling between dailyBudgetAmount and dailyBudgetMode (Mode must accompany the sum, otherwise the current one is re-read) — an interaction the per-field schema text does not make explicit. It says nothing about negativeKeywords being a full replacement, leaving that entirely to the schema.

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 (updates campaign name, end date and/or daily budget) and even pins the underlying API method (campaigns/update), so the agent knows exactly what entity is being mutated. The enumeration reads as near-exhaustive yet omits negativeKeywords and client_login, which are real capabilities in the schema, so the scope is slightly under-stated.

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 gives one conditional usage rule (if dailyBudgetMode is absent, the current mode is read and preserved), which is genuinely useful. It never says when to pick this tool over sibling mutators like campaign_action or update_ad_group, nor does it state prerequisites such as needing id or an accessible client_login.

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