add_delegateAdd a ProductClank user as a delegate on a campaign so they can view and manage it from the webapp's My Campaigns page. Free. Useful to hand oversight of an agent-created campaign to its human owner (the connected user's own id works too).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | ProductClank User id to grant webapp access to | |
| campaign_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only clarify that the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and not open-world. The description adds that the effect is granting view/manage access, but it does not mention possible side effects like repeated calls creating duplicate delegates, account/permission prerequisites, or whether an existing delegate is replaced. That is an adequate baseline but not a 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?
Two sentences deliver the action, outcome, cost, and target use case efficiently. The one-word fragment 'Free.' carries relevant economics without detracting from the overall structure.
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?
Given only two simple string parameters and no output schema, the description covers the required context: what the tool does, who it can add, and when it is useful. It lacks details about return values or error cases, but these are less critical for this call shape.
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?
With only 50% schema description coverage because campaign_id lacks a schema description, the description compensates by referring to the campaign and calling it 'agent-created'. For user_id, the description adds beyond the schema by noting that the connected user's own id can be used. This meaningfully helps an agent choose parameters correctly.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Add a ProductClank user as a delegate on a campaign', with a clear outcome ('so they can view and manage it from the webapp's My Campaigns page'). The title reinforces the primary effect, and no sibling tool overlaps with the act of granting delegate access.
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?
Gives clear when-to-use context: 'Useful to hand oversight of an agent-created campaign to its human owner', and even covers the edge case of self-delegation ('the connected user's own id works too'). It does not name alternatives, but there are no obvious sibling tools dedicated to this task, so exclusions are less necessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools map cleanly to a distinct resource and action: campaigns, posts, products, research, content spaces, and submissions. A few pairs are close—`create_campaign` vs `create_content_campaign` and `check_balance` vs `get_earnings`—but the detailed descriptions make the intended selection clear.
The set largely follows a consistent `verb_noun` snake_case pattern (`list_campaigns`, `generate_posts`, `update_campaign`, `submit_participation`). Minor deviations keep it from a perfect score: `credit_history` lacks a verb, and `create_campaign` reads as generic next to the more specific `create_content_campaign`.
30 tools is high and makes the server feel heavy, but the domain genuinely spans products, credits, campaigns, research, post discovery, content spaces, boosts, and participation rewards. The breadth mostly earns the count, though it sits on the wrong side of the typical 3–15 range.
The core end-to-end workflow is covered: create and configure campaigns, discover and refine posts, run research, find opportunities, submit work, and measure results. Gaps exist but are minor for the central purpose—product listings can’t be updated or deleted, and delegates can be added but not removed.