google_ads_budget_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the mutating nature, reversibility via rollback_apply, return of id and resource_name, and association with multiple campaigns. Lacks detail on duplicate name handling but schema covers uniqueness.

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?

Description is concise (5 sentences) and well-structured: purpose, return values, mutability, typical flow, alternative tool. Every sentence adds value with no 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 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, return values, usage flow, and alternative actions. No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all three parameters (customer_id fallback, name uniqueness, amount not in micros). The description does not add new parameter information beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score of 3.

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' with the ability to attach to multiple campaigns and returns id/resource_name. It distinguishes from sibling 'google_ads_budget_update' by explicitly noting that editing an existing budget should use update instead.

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 when-to-use (creating a new budget), when-not-to-use (editing existing budget), references the typical flow (budget.create followed by campaigns.create), and mentions reversibility via rollback_apply.

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