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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the ownership constraint and 'owner-private' context, but does not disclose return behavior, error cases, or side effects beyond that. Some value added but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and key constraints. No waste.

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 create tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is sparse. It does not explain the return value, the meaning of each field, or prerequisites (e.g., needing to create a brand/audience first). The ownership constraint is mentioned, but much is left implicit.

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 low (25%), with only brand_id and audience_id described as 'Full UUID from the matching list tool'. The description adds meaning by explaining the linking constraint ('linked only to owned brand/audience ids'), but does not clarify the other six parameters (e.g., status, channels, objective). It partially compensates but not fully.

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 states a specific verb (create) and resource (marketing campaign) and adds the scoping constraints 'owner-private' and 'linked only to owned brand/audience ids'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_marketing_audience and update_marketing_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?

It implies when to use: when creating a new campaign with owner-private visibility and linking to owned ids. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives or mention prerequisites like obtaining brand/audience ids from list tools.

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