google_ads_batch_update_budgets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that it performs a batch operation and returns success/failure details, but does not mention permissions, mutability, partial failures, or side effects. It adequately describes the required input schema but lacks behavioral detail.

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 well-structured with sections for Args, Schema, Required Fields, Returns, and Example. It is concise but includes a necessary code block. Every sentence is informative, though the code block could be slightly trimmed. It is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 2 parameters and a custom JSON input, the description provides adequate completeness for input structure. It explains the return only generically, but an output schema exists (not detailed). It does not compare to sibling tools, but the name and description sufficiently differentiate.

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 provides only names and types (0% coverage), so the description adds crucial semantic information: customer_id format (10 digits, no hyphens), budget_updates_json inner schema with required fields (campaign_id, budget_amount), and daily budget unit. An example is provided, making parameter usage clear.

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 verb (Update), resource (budgets for multiple campaigns), and scope (single batch operation). It distinguishes from siblings like update_campaign_budget_v2 by emphasizing the batch aspect.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention that for single campaign budget updates, one should use update_campaign_budget_v2, nor does it provide context on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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