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

Annotations declare the write/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: durable execution, the partial-failure policy (completed_items_not_rolled_back), automatic derivation of a deterministic idempotency key, and the rule that a seatId/seatName must be supplied on the exact write call when multiple seats are authorised. These are genuinely useful traits an agent could not infer from the annotations alone.

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 dense block of directives; the mutation-mode and idempotency lines earn their place, but the response-presentation boilerplate (never display raw JSON, use assistantSummary, mention IDs only when useful) is generic guidance not specific to create_flight. It is front-loaded with the tool name first, but the signal-to-noise ratio is mediocre.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a 14-parameter mutation with nested creativeConfigs and zero required-field guidance, the description is incomplete: it never states what a flight is, how the campaign/advertiser/account fields interrelate, or which fields are mandatory in practice.

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 0% across 14 parameters, so the burden falls on the description, yet it only addresses two of them (idempotencyKey and seatId/seatName). Core fields such as name, platform, accountId, advertiserId, campaignId, expectedVersion, and the creativeConfigs/thirdPartyTags structures receive no explanation at all.

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 opens with 'create flight.', which simply restates the tool name, and never explains what a flight actually is or how it relates to campaigns, advertisers, or creatives. 'Classification: writes to Studio' adds a hint about the write target but no differentiating scope from siblings like create_campaign or build_ad.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given against alternatives such as validate_flight, update_flight, or create_campaign. The mutation modes (validate_only/preview_only/execute) hint that validate-only is possible, but the description never says when to prefer this tool or which sibling to reach for instead.

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