create_budget_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a budget schedule and returns an ID or error, but lacks critical details: whether this is a destructive/mutative operation (implied by 'create'), permission requirements, rate limits, error handling specifics, or how the schedule integrates with existing campaign budgets. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond basic function.

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 a clear purpose statement, usage context, and detailed parameter explanations. It's appropriately sized for a 6-parameter tool with no schema descriptions. Minor improvements could include bolding key terms, but overall it's efficient with minimal redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, mutation operation) with no annotations but an output schema (implied by 'Returns' statement), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return values, though it lacks behavioral details like side effects or error conditions. The output schema reduces need for return value explanation, but more context on tool behavior would enhance completeness.

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?

The description provides comprehensive parameter semantics in the 'Args' section, explaining each parameter's purpose and constraints (e.g., 'Unix timestamps,' 'ABSOLUTE or MULTIPLIER,' optional token behavior). With 0% schema description coverage in the input schema (titles only, no descriptions), this fully compensates by adding meaning beyond the bare schema, making all parameters clearly understandable.

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 as 'Create a budget schedule for a Meta Ads campaign' with the specific function of 'scheduling budget increases based on anticipated high-demand periods.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_campaign or update_campaign that handle different campaign aspects. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all budget-related tools (none exist in siblings).

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 context ('based on anticipated high-demand periods') and mentions an alternative for the access_token parameter ('will use cached token if not provided'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_campaign for budget adjustments or other scheduling tools. No when-not-to-use scenarios or sibling tool comparisons are provided.

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