direct_set_daily_budget

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the write nature ('WRITE') and warns about an API 4004 conflict with WeeklySpendLimit, which is valuable. However, it omits details like reversibility, permission requirements, or response behavior.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the verb (WRITE) and resource, then adds critical constraints. Every phrase earns its place: the micros unit, mode, API conflict, and allow_write requirement. No redundancy.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the most essential aspects: mutation, units, mode, a key error condition, and the write-enabling flag. It doesn't explain dry_run's effect, but the schema's allow_write description partially covers the dry-run behavior. For a focused write tool, this is reasonably complete.

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 low (33%), so the description compensates by clarifying that daily_rub is in micros and listing the mode enum values. It also emphasizes allow_write=true, a critical requirement. However, it leaves dry_run and campaign_id semantics to inference, though these are relatively self-explanatory.

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 clearly states a write operation for the campaign daily budget in rubles (micros), specifying the mode (STANDARD|DISTRIBUTED). It distinguishes from sibling weekly budget tools by explicitly targeting 'DailyBudget'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like direct_set_network_weekly_budget or direct_set_search_weekly_budget. It only includes a constraint about not sending it with WeeklySpendLimit, but lacks explicit selection criteria or exclusions.

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