rebalance_resources_to_product

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'shift outbound/day budget,' implying a mutation operation, but fails to detail critical aspects like required permissions, whether the shift is reversible, potential side effects on campaigns, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to grasp quickly, and every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 complexity (8 parameters, mutation implied, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, and usage context. However, the output schema helps mitigate some gaps, preventing a lower score.

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 8 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no descriptive context for parameters. The description only vaguely references 'worst active campaign' and 'target product campaign,' which partially relates to 'target_product_slug' but doesn't explain the meaning or usage of other parameters like 'lookback_days,' 'minimum_worst_outbound,' or date fields. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, insufficient to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 action ('Shift outbound/day budget') and the resources involved ('from the worst active campaign to a target product campaign'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'configure_product_strategy' or 'modify_keywords', which might also involve resource allocation or campaign adjustments, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other sibling tools like 'configure_product_strategy' or 'modify_funnels' that might handle similar budget adjustments. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this rebalancing is appropriate, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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