update_campaign_budget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the preview/confirm flow, including what the preview returns (current value, proposed value, percentage change) and the condition for token issuance ('If it is within limits'). However, it does not disclose error scenarios or what happens if limits are exceeded, but the output schema may cover return details.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It opens with a one-sentence purpose, then explains the two-phase process, then lists arguments with concise explanations. No fluff; every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 two-phase complexity, the description is complete. It explains the workflow, the token mechanics, and all parameters. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return structures in detail. The description fully equips an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so comprehensively: customer_id as 'Account holding the campaign', campaign_id as 'Campaign whose budget changes', new_daily_budget as 'New daily amount in account currency', and confirm_token with clear omit-for-preview guidance. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Change a campaign's daily budget.' It uses a specific verb (change) and resource (campaign's daily budget), and the two-phase preview/confirm detail distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_campaign_status or list_campaigns.

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 explicit usage instructions: call without confirm_token to preview, then call again with token to apply. It clearly explains the two-step process, but does not mention exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when not to use this tool). This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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