ads_update_campaign_budget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by flagging 'Money-affecting change' and explaining that confirm must be true to apply, with anything else acting as a dry-run. It does not mention permissions, reversibility, or shared-budget implications, but the key safety-relevant behaviors are 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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the operation, the second flags risk, and the Args block cleanly maps to the schema. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly, covering all parameters and the critical dry-run/apply behavior. The only gap is lack of explicit when-to-use guidance relative to the many sibling ad-management tools, which is minor given the operation is self-descriptive and an output schema exists.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates fully by documenting all four parameters. It adds crucial meaning beyond the raw schema: customer_id is specified as a 10-digit account id, new_daily_budget gets a concrete example, and confirm's true-only-applies behavior is explained.

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 states a specific action ('change') on a specific resource ('campaign's daily budget') with a clear unit ('account currency'). It distinguishes itself from sibling budget/status/bidding tools by naming the exact budget amount being updated.

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 intended use is implied by the action statement, but no explicit guidance is given for when to choose this tool over alternatives like ads_set_campaign_status or ads_set_campaign_bidding_strategy. The confirm/dry-run note provides operational context, but the description does not state exclusions or alternative routing.

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