direct_set_search_weekly_budget

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that this is a WRITE operation, that allow_write=true is required to mutate (otherwise only dry plan), and that it aborts on unexpected live strategy unless force=true. It also clarifies what it does NOT change (DailyBudget). This is solid behavioral disclosure, though it does not mention rate limits or return format.

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 operation type ('WRITE:') and packs key constraints. It is concise, but the use of all-caps abbreviations and 'JTBD-style' introduces jargon that may obscure meaning without adding clarity.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, conditions, safety (allow_write, force), and exclusions. It does not explain return values or dry_run behavior explicitly, but infers that allow_write=false results in a dry plan. This is reasonably complete 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 50% (force, project, allow_write described in schema). The description adds meaning for weekly_rub (₽ denomination) and reinforces the role of allow_write and force. However, dry_run is left completely undefined in both schema and description. The added parameter context is helpful but not comprehensive.

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 identifies this as a WRITE operation for setting a weekly spend limit on search campaigns with HIGHEST_POSITION strategy and network serving off. It distinguishes itself from siblings by scoping to 'Search' and 'WeeklySpendLimit' and explicitly noting it does not change DailyBudget. However, the phrasing is cryptic with all-caps and abbreviations (JTBD-style) that reduce immediate clarity.

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 implies that this tool is for search campaigns with HIGHEST_POSITION strategy and network serving off. It states the ablation condition: 'Aborts if live strategy is unexpected unless force=true.' It also clarifies that it does not change DailyBudget, guiding against confusion with daily budget tools. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like direct_set_network_weekly_budget or direct_set_daily_budget.

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