kadam_adv_set_day_money_limit

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

Annotations only cover idempotency, so the description carries the rest and delivers real behavioral disclosure: raising or removing the limit resumes campaigns it had stopped, a minimum-value constraint sourced from another tool, and a currency-eligibility gate. These are consequential side effects an agent must know before calling.

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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying distinct routing, validation, eligibility, or side-effect information with no filler. The most important distinction (account vs campaign) is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope, alternative routing, validation bounds, eligibility, and side effects. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 single parameter is fully described in the schema, but the description goes beyond it by stating the amount must be at least the minimum reported by kadam_adv_get_day_money_limit and reasserting the 0-removes semantics. That adds a validation rule the schema's minimum: 0 alone does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('sets the daily spending limit of the WHOLE ACCOUNT') and explicitly scopes it against the sibling use case by naming kadam_adv_update_campaign for campaign budgets. An agent can distinguish it from all siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing ('for a campaign budget use kadam_adv_update_campaign'), a value convention (pass 0 to remove), a validation precondition tied to kadam_adv_get_day_money_limit, and a currency eligibility restriction. Nothing substantive is left to inference.

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