update_daily_budget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full safety burden and does well: it discloses that dry_run defaults to True, that a confirm flag is required to apply a change, and that META_ADS_MAX_DAILY_BUDGET_CENTS caps the value. It does not say what the tool returns or how failures surface, but the mutation safety profile is clearly communicated.

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?

Three short, front-loaded lines with no filler; the safe-default behavior comes first and the confirming step second. Efficient, though the env-var constraint could be folded into the invocation sentence.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description covers the critical dry-run/confirm workflow and the budget ceiling. Gaps remain around return behavior, error handling, and which object IDs are valid, which matter for a write operation.

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 explains dry_run and confirm semantics and ties the env-var cap to daily_budget_cents, but object_id is left unexplained (which ID type, campaign vs ad set nuance) and the unit/format expectations for daily_budget_cents are only implied by the name.

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 ('Update daily budget') and the two object types it applies to (campaign or ad set). It does not differentiate itself from siblings like bulk_update_campaign_status, but the purpose is 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?

Gives procedural guidance for the write flow (dry_run defaults True; set dry_run=False and confirm=True after review), which is actionable. However, it never says when to prefer this over sibling tools such as bulk_update_campaign_status or pause/activate_campaign, so selection guidance is only implied.

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