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

Even though annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, the description goes well beyond that by explicitly warning 'WRITES live.' It also discloses behavior such as honoring plan limits, spend guardrails, and capacity, auto-resolving Page/Instagram/pixel assets, and validating inputs. This gives the agent essential operational knowledge beyond the annotation.

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 tight and front-loaded: the core purpose is in the first sentence, followed by high-priority warnings like 'WRITES live' and guardrail behavior. Every sentence adds useful operational context without fluff or repetition of schema fields. It is an efficient, well-structured description.

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 bulk-write tool with no output schema, the description covers the most critical operational context: live writes, guardrails, auto-resolution, and image requirements. It does not mention confirm-warning behavior or post-creation return values, and it leans on the schema for DPA-specific fields, but the essential calling context is present.

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 every parameter thoroughly. The description adds one useful high-level note (each campaign needs an imageUrl with public or Drive/Dropbox share link), but this mostly restates schema content. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description does not significantly deepen parameter understanding.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Create many Meta campaigns at once on ONE account.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like create_campaign and bulk_create_multi_account by emphasizing bulk creation and single-account scope. The 'WRITES live' and rate-limit/guardrail details further pin down its exact nature.

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 gives clear context: this is for bulk-creating many campaigns on one account, and it is a live write operation. It implies alternatives like create_campaign for single campaigns or validate_campaigns for dry-runs, but it never names them explicitly or states when not to use this tool. The 'ONE account' phrasing does hint at the boundary versus bulk_create_multi_account.

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