update_campaign_budget

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does an excellent job by revealing the safety-critical behavior: 'Default is DRY RUN — shows preview. Pass confirm=True to execute.' This tells the agent that the tool is non-destructive by default and requires explicit confirmation to mutate. The description only lacks details on response outcomes or permissions, but the dry-run disclosure is the most important behavioral trait.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides essential execution behavior. It is front-loaded, direct, and contains zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's moderate complexity (mutation with a dry-run safeguard) and the presence of an output schema (so return values need not be described), the description covers the essential behavior: what it does and how to execute it safely. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., accessible customer_id) or edge cases, but for a simple budget update, the description is sufficiently 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description's mention of the dry-run behavior and confirm=True is redundant with the confirm parameter's schema description ('Set True to execute. Default False (dry run).'). Thus, the description adds no meaningful information beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 states the specific action ('Update a campaign's daily budget') with a clear verb, resource, and field. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like update_campaign_status and update_keyword_bid by specifying 'budget' as the target.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (updating a campaign budget) and the critical dry-run vs. execute behavior. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions, but the clarity of the purpose makes the usage obvious.

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