google_ads_create_shared_budget

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the creation action and return type but does not disclose potential side effects, idempotency, permissions required, or rate limits. It is adequate but lacks depth.

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 concise, well-structured with Args, Returns, and Note sections. Every sentence is purposeful and no extraneous information is present.

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 medium complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists), the description is nearly complete. It covers all parameters, return type, and a follow-up step. Missing details like error handling or idempotency, but overall sufficient.

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, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: customer_id format (no hyphens), budget_name, daily_amount unit and example, and delivery_method options with default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 purpose: 'Create a shared budget that can be used across multiple campaigns.' It uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('shared budget'), and explains the cross-campaign usage, distinguishing it from sibling tools like google_ads_assign_shared_budget.

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 explicitly mentions when to use a sibling tool: 'After creating a shared budget, use google_ads_assign_shared_budget to assign it to campaigns.' This provides clear context, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives beyond the one sibling.

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