create_budget_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('JSON string containing the ID... or an error message'), the meaning of budget_value_type ('ABSOLUTE' or 'MULTIPLIER'), and the optional access_token fallback. It does not mention rate limits or reversibility, but for a create operation, this is reasonably transparent.

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: a one-line purpose, a brief contextual sentence, a clearly formatted Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, output schema present), the description is complete. It covers all parameters, explains the return value, and provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. No gaps are apparent.

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%, and the description fully compensates by documenting every parameter: campaign_id, budget_value, budget_value_type, time_start, time_end, and access_token. It adds meaning beyond the schema, such as the interpretation of budget_value based on budget_value_type and the Unix timestamp requirement.

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 'Create a budget schedule for a Meta Ads campaign' with a specific verb and resource, and further explains its purpose: 'Allows scheduling budget increases based on anticipated high-demand periods.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which handle scheduling.

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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool via 'Allows scheduling budget increases based on anticipated high-demand periods,' which is clear context. It also provides practical guidance on Unix timestamps. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling offers similar functionality, so the guidance is adequate.

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