campaign_shared_budget_unassign_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's 'Preview' reinforces the non-mutating nature but adds nothing about what the preview returns or what validation it performs, so it does not exceed the annotation coverage by much.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the operation and scope are stated immediately. It is arguably too terse rather than too long.

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?

Annotations and an existing output schema carry much of the burden, but for a four-required-parameter preview tool with two undocumented IDs, the description leaves the agent without prerequisite or follow-up context.

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 only 50% – campaignId and sharedBudgetId have no descriptions, and the tool description adds no parameter meaning at all (e.g., how to obtain a sharedBudgetId or whether the assignment must exist). With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 names a specific verb ('Preview removing') and resource ('one shared-budget assignment from one campaign'), making the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly name the mirror sibling campaign_shared_budget_assign_preview, but the pairing is obvious from the wording.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the assign sibling or versus the actual apply step (operations_apply). The word 'Preview' hints at a dry run, but the description never states that the change is not committed or how to follow through.

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