Google 広告のキャンペーン予算を作成

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the server-side micro-conversion behavior and the ordering dependency, but says nothing about permissions, whether duplicate names are rejected, or what the call returns — modest added value over the annotations.

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?

Three short clauses: purpose, the ordering rationale, and the unit rule. Nothing redundant, and the functional statement is front-loaded.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description omits what is returned — notably the created budget's resource ID, which the agent needs to attach the budget to a campaign, the very workflow the description describes. Ordering and units are covered, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including the currency-unit rule. The description restates the unit convention for daily_amount but adds no semantics the schema lacks (e.g. the customer_id environment-variable fallback is only in the schema). Baseline 3 applies.

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 (作る/create) and resource (キャンペーン予算), and explicitly distinguishes it from the campaign resource by noting that budget is a separate Google Ads resource. An agent can immediately tell this apart from google_ads_create_campaign.

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?

Gives a clear ordering rule: create the budget before the campaign. What is missing is exclusion guidance against the sibling google_ads_update_budget, which handles the modify-existing case; without that, an agent might reach for this tool to adjust an existing budget.

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