google_ads_budget_create

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

Notes that the operation is 'Mutating, reversible via rollback_apply', which adds important behavioral context beyond the default assumption. With no annotations provided, the description covers mutability and recoverability, though it could mention potential impacts or failure modes.

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 succinct, front-loading core purpose, then behavioral note, then usage flow and alternatives. All sentences serve a clear purpose without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description provides all essential context: creation purpose, return values, mutation info, typical flow, and an alternative. This is fully adequate for an AI agent to understand how to use the tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema; it only restates the purpose. The 'Not micros' note is already in the schema description. Thus, no extra value 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 'Creates a new campaign budget that can be attached to one or more campaigns' and specifies return values (id, resource_name). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like google_ads_budget_update, which is for editing existing budgets.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Typical flow: budget.create → campaigns.create with the returned budget_id' and warns against creating a second budget when editing is needed, referencing the update tool. This clearly indicates when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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