propose_budget_change

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

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing that no change is applied immediately: it returns a pending plan with a diff and requires human approval. This is the most important behavioral fact for a mutation tool and the annotations (destructiveHint=false with no approval context) do not convey it. It stops short of describing plan persistence or expiry.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the return/approval behavior. No filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by sketching the return value (a pending plan with a diff) and the approval workflow. Combined with non-destructive annotations, an agent has enough to call it safely, though parameter-level detail and preconditions remain thin.

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 0% and both parameters are required, so the description carries the burden. It conveys only that daily_budget is the new daily budget; campaign_id semantics (format, source) and budget constraints (the schema's exclusiveMinimum > 0) are not addressed in prose.

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?

States a specific verb (propose) and resource (new daily budget for a campaign), making the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling propose_status_change or propose_undo, but the budget-specific resource is distinctive enough for an agent to route correctly.

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 through the approval note ('a person must approve it'), which signals this is the non-committal, review-first path, but it never states when to prefer this over alternatives or what preconditions exist (e.g., campaign must exist, valid budget range).

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