create_budget_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavior. It mentions that access_token is optional and will use a cached token, which adds some transparency. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or requires specific permissions, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 with an intro, bullet-like Args list, and Returns. While verbose, every sentence is informative. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though some repetition (e.g., 'budget schedule' twice) could be trimmed.

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 6 parameters with comprehensive descriptions and an output schema present, the description covers input semantics well. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, error handling), which prevents a higher score. Returns are mentioned but not detailed, though output schema likely compensates.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: campaign_id, budget_value (as increase amount), budget_value_type (ABSOLUTE or MULTIPLIER), time_start and time_end as Unix timestamps, and access_token as optional. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 creates a budget schedule for a Meta Ads campaign and explains its purpose for scheduling budget increases based on anticipated high-demand periods. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_campaign' or 'create_adset' which create different entities.

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 implies usage for scheduling budget increases but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools are provided, leaving the agent with limited guidance.

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