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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well. It discloses that May creates a PAUSED campaign separately in the portal, 'never turns anything on,' 'never spends ad budget,' and usually completes in under a minute. This is far beyond a minimal mutation description.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then duration, then safety, then prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place and no content is redundant.

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?

The description thoroughly covers prerequisites, side effects, and safety, which is especially important because there is no output schema and no annotations. The only notable gap is that it does not describe the API response shape, though it does explain where deliverables land.

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 80%, and the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds context around prerequisites (confirmed brand profile, May plan, X-Mako-Key header) but does not meaningfully elaborate the parameters themselves, so the baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Start a May creative run for one client.' It enumerates concrete outputs (research, copy, eight ad concepts) and the delivery destination (portal), which clearly differentiates it from generic siblings like get_status or create_order.

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 explicit prerequisites: the client must have a confirmed brand profile, a May plan, and an X-Mako-Key header. It also sets runtime expectations. It does not name alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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