google_ads_budget_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses mutability, irreversibility, shared budget impact, and the immutable period constraint. This is substantial behavioral context, though missing details on rate limits or error handling.

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 concise sentences, each adding unique information. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, followed by essential caveats. No redundant or extraneous content.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description covers mutation behavior, shared budgets, period constraints, rollback advice, and parameter clarification. It is reasonably complete, though it could mention response details beyond 'returns the updated budget' and potential error conditions.

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 each parameter documented. The description adds critical value beyond the schema by clarifying unit (not micros), period applicability for total amounts, and the source of budget_id. This justifies an above-baseline score.

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 it 'sets the daily and/or total amount on an existing campaign budget,' specifying verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it updates existing budgets and warns about shared budgets and period immutability, but does not explicitly name alternative 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 clear context: it advises recording before-state for potential rollback, warns that shared budgets affect all campaigns, and instructs to check reference_count first. It implies when not to use (e.g., for DAILY budgets with total amounts), but does not explicitly list alternatives.

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