create_budget

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

Annotations already communicate that this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation, and the description's 'Create a new...' wording aligns with that. The description adds useful parameter-level behavior about delivery_method and explicitly_shared, but does not disclose side effects, return behavior, or any operational constraints. With annotations carrying the core safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single purpose sentence followed by a compact, alphabetized Args block. There is no filler or repetition, and each line adds necessary information. The structure is easy to scan and front-loads the core action.

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?

All parameters are fully explained, which makes the tool invocable. However, with no output schema present, the description omits any mention of what the tool returns, such as the created budget's resource ID. It also does not explain how the created budget relates to campaigns or other budget operations, which leaves some contextual gap.

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?

The input schema provides only names and types, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It explains customer_id, name, amount with a currency example, delivery_method with both options and their meanings, and explicitly_shared with a clear real-world consequence. Every parameter receives meaningful context.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new campaign budget.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_budget (new vs. update) and create_campaign (budget vs. campaign). The scope 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?

The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_budget or create_campaign, nor does it mention that budgets are typically created before being attached to campaigns. This leaves the selection decision entirely to the agent's inference from sibling names.

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