reallocate_media_budget

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses critical behaviors: forwarding to agent route, operator guardrails (MAX_BUDGET_SHIFT_PCT cap, OPERATOR_REQUIRE_APPROVAL), logging to operator_action_log, and queuing for manual execution if no agent URL. This is comprehensive and transparent.

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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. While it could be slightly more concise, every sentence adds value and there is no redundant information.

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?

The description covers the main flow and guardrails but omits what the tool returns (no output schema). Given the complexity of budget reallocation with approval flows, the description is largely complete for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it, though a brief note on the response would improve it.

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 covers 67% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds context about the rationale parameter's importance ('Always provide the attribution insight') and the supported platforms (matching platform enum). It does not detail each parameter but enriches understanding of how they are used in the broader workflow.

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 'Shift budget from an underperforming campaign or line item to one with higher attributed pipeline contribution.' It uses a specific verb ('Shift') and resource ('budget'), and distinguishes itself from siblings as the only budget reallocation tool among many campaign and account retrieval tools.

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 detailed context on when to use this tool, including supported platforms and the behavior based on PAID_MEDIA_AGENT_URL configuration. It implies usage for performance-driven budget shifts but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, though no alternative exists among siblings.

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