set_campaign_budget

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by warning that raising the budget raises potential spend, and instructs to confirm with the user. This highlights the key side effect of the operation. It does not detail permissions or reversibility, but for a simple setter, the primary risk is disclosed.

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, with each earning its place. The first states the purpose and the budget unit; the second is a critical warning and user-confirmation instruction. No redundant or vague wording. Excellent economy.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 self-explanatory parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (reducing the need to describe return values), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, key risk, and a user interaction requirement. Minor omissions like min/max budget constraints or exact behavior on existing budget are not critical for invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description should add meaning. It does clarify that the daily budget is in account currency, which adds semantics to the daily_budget parameter. However, account_id and campaign_id are left self-explanatory from their names, with no additional guidance on format or validation. The description partially compensates but is not thorough.

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 the specific action ('Set a campaign's daily budget') with the resource (campaign) and the key parameter (daily budget in account currency). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_campaign_status, as the verb+resource+object is explicit and 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 provides a clear context for using the tool: setting a daily budget. It also includes an explicit instruction to confirm increases with the user, which serves as a usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it, though relative to siblings the purpose is clear.

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