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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it meets it admirably. It reveals the default PAUSED state, the dry-run validation and launch-review-card flow, the user-confirmation requirement, the catalog-binding behavior at the campaign level, and the conversational stop rule after the card renders. This is highly transparent about how the tool actually behaves and what side effects or UI steps to expect.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then packs dense, non-obvious guidance into a compact block. Every sentence earns its place: the default status, the catalog-ads constraint, the dry-run card workflow, and the stop-and-wait rule. For a tool with 20 parameters and no annotations, this level of focused detail is appropriately sized.

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, the absence of annotations, and the lack of an output schema, the description covers the most decision-critical context: the interactive launch flow, the defaulting behavior, and the catalog requirement. It does not describe the exact shape or contents of the launch-review card or the real-create response, but the schema absorbs most parameter-level detail. A small but non-fatal gap.

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 70%, so much parameter-level detail already exists. The description adds valuable cross-parameter semantics: the PAUSED default and ACTIVE exception, the requirement to pair advantage_catalog_ads with catalog_id for Catalog/Collection ads, the fact that the ad set needs no catalog fields while the product set is chosen at the ad level, and the dry_run-first workflow. This goes beyond what individual schema descriptions convey, though it does not comment on all parameters.

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 opens with 'Create Meta campaign' — a specific verb, platform, and resource — making it immediately clear what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from Google campaign siblings by saying 'Meta', and from adsap_create_ad and adsap_create_ad_sets by naming the campaign resource. The added context about defaulting to PAUSED reinforces the core behavior.

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?

It gives explicit operational directives: ALWAYS call with dry_run: true first, rely on the rendered launch review card, and do not call the real create from chat unless the user explicitly asks in a new message and the card's activity log shows nothing was created. These are strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions. However, it never names sibling tools like adsap_create_ad_sets or adsap_create_ad as the alternatives for creating ad sets or ads, so the versus-alternatives guidance is only implicit.

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