direct_set_network_weekly_budget

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

With no annotations, the description discloses critical behaviors: it is a write operation, requires allow_write=true, converts ₽ to micros, and does not modify DailyBudget. However, it does not mention overwrite semantics, error conditions, or whether existing bid ceilings are replaced, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 extremely concise—two dense sentences that front-load the action and include only high-value information. Every clause contributes to usage, conversion, or scope, with no filler.

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 and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, scope, and safety flag effectively. It lacks details on return values and potential side effects on existing settings, but overall it is sufficient for a straightforward setter.

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 67%, and the description adds essential meaning beyond the schema by explaining the ₽ to micros conversion for monetary parameters and clarifying the optional BidCeiling. It does not elaborate on dry_run or campaign_id, but the conversion detail is a significant value-add.

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 that the tool writes a network weekly budget maximum clicks spend limit for RSYA-style campaigns. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it does not touch DailyBudget and focuses on network budgets only.

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?

It provides contextual guidance by mentioning 'RSYA-style campaigns' and that search is left as-is, implying when to use. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the scoping hints at separation from daily budget and search weekly budget tools. Lacks explicit when-not/alternatives.

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