create_content_assetCreate a private draft content asset. There is no publish/send operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| channel | No | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| asset_type | No | ||
| campaign_id | Yes | Full UUID from the matching list tool. | |
| scheduled_for | No | ||
| revision_notes | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate it is not read-only or destructive; the description adds that the asset is private and a draft with no subsequent publish operation, providing useful context beyond annotations.
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?
Two brief sentences front-load the core action and an important limitation. No unnecessary words.
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?
While the tool has 7 parameters and an output schema, the description only covers basic intent and one limitation. Missing workflow context (e.g., revision or submission steps) makes it only partially complete.
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 only 14% and the description does not clarify any parameters. For parameters like channel and asset_type, additional guidance would be helpful.
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 clearly states it creates a private draft content asset, and mentions there is no publish/send operation, distinguishing it from similar tools like submit_content_asset or approve_content_asset.
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 implies this tool is for creating drafts without publishing, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like create_content_asset_revision or submit_content_asset.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.