create_marketing_campaignCreate an owner-private marketing campaign linked only to owned brand/audience ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| status | No | ||
| ends_on | No | ||
| brand_id | No | Full UUID from the matching list tool. | |
| channels | No | ||
| objective | No | ||
| starts_on | No | ||
| audience_id | No | Full UUID from the matching list tool. |
| 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?
With annotations all false, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the campaign is 'owner-private', but does not mention other behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether creation is immediate or asynchronous, rate limits, or any side effects beyond linkage.
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 a single sentence of 14 words, immediately conveying the core action and key constraints. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff.
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 tool has 8 parameters and an output schema (not shown). The description only covers the high-level purpose and the linkage constraint, but does not explain the output, required fields, or any nuances for the many optional parameters. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to invoke the tool correctly.
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 25% (only brand_id and audience_id have descriptions in the schema). The tool description does not add meaning for the other 6 parameters (name, status, ends_on, channels, objective, starts_on). The mention of 'linked only to owned brand/audience ids' weakly ties to those parameters but does not explain their semantics or constraints.
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 the verb 'Create' and the resource 'marketing campaign'. It adds specific qualifiers ('owner-private' and 'linked only to owned brand/audience ids') which distinguish it from sibling create tools like create_marketing_audience or create_outreach_campaign.
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 usage context by stating the campaign is 'linked only to owned brand/audience ids', suggesting the user must have such owned resources. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., create_outreach_campaign) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.