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

Despite annotations marking this as non-read-only and open-world, the description clarifies that nothing is created in the ad account and nothing counts toward the change limit, with answers held under draft_id. This is precisely the extra context an agent needs to trust invoking a write-flagged tool.

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 dense paragraph but front-loads the core action and each sentence carries information (form fields, trigger condition, side-effect safety, finalization path). Some sentences run long, slightly hurting readability.

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 6-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what the tool does, when to invoke it, its side-effect profile, and how the workflow concludes via create_campaign with the draft_id. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the draft_id lifecycle but adds little param-level syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (building a Meta campaign) and makes clear this is an interactive, form-driven builder rather than a direct creator. It distinguishes itself from the sibling create_campaign by positioning that tool as the finalizing step.

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?

"Call it when the person wants to build a campaign step by step or is unsure what to fill in" gives explicit when-to-use context. It implies the alternative (direct creation) via the create_campaign handoff, though it never states an explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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