campaign_shared_budget_assign_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scope ('one budget to one campaign') and the preview nature, without explaining what is validated, whether it mutates state, or what confirmation is needed.

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 single front-loaded sentence is efficient and contains no filler. However, the extreme brevity leaves key usage and parameter context unstated, which is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness flaw.

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?

Although an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, this preview tool sits in a broader apply workflow with many siblings and two undocumented parameters. The description does not explain the preview's role, what the agent should do with the output, or any prerequisites, making it underspecified for correct invocation.

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 50%: 'profile' and 'adAccountId' are documented, while 'campaignId' and 'sharedBudgetId' are not. The description does not compensate by clarifying those parameters, their expected formats, or whether IDs are numeric strings or opaque identifiers.

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 ('assigning'), resource ('shared budget'), and target ('campaign'), plus that it is a preview. This distinguishes it from campaign_shared_budget_unassign_preview by name, though it does not explicitly contrast with the unassign sibling in the text.

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 preview versus alternatives such as operations_apply, shared_budget_get, or campaign_update_preview. It only restates the operation, leaving the agent to infer the preview-then-apply workflow.

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