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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and open-world, but the description adds useful behavioral context: credentials remain server-side and mutations require a preview/confirmation flow. This is meaningful beyond the annotations, though it does not mention rate limits, error behavior, or what preview returns.

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 short and front-loaded, with no wasted prose beyond the initial title restatement. Each sentence carries some useful context, though the first sentence duplicates the title rather than adding information.

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 complex generic proxy with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers authentication and the mutation confirmation requirement but omits return behavior, request payload expectations, and sibling differentiation. It is minimally adequate because the schema itself is richly documented, but the description does not fully compensate for the tool's complexity.

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 carries detailed parameter semantics including method, contentType, pagination, and confirmationToken. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the authentication and mutation confirmation notes, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 largely restates the title, 'Amazon Ads: sb/campaigns API,' without a clear verb describing what operation the tool performs. It identifies the upstream resource area but does not explain that it is a generic proxy for executing SB campaign API calls, nor how it differs from sibling proxy tools such as sb_v4_campaigns or sb_v4_campaigns_list.

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 states that the tool uses the Nexscope Amazon Ads connection and that mutations require preview and confirmation, but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool instead of the many sibling campaign proxies. There are no exclusions, no method-selection guidance, and no explanation of the relationship to the v4 or list variants.

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