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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing durable execution, validate_only/preview_only/execute mutation modes, completed_items_not_rolled_back partial failure policy, internal-state return JSON, idempotency key derivation, and the multi-seat seatId/seatName requirement. It is consistent with the readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false annotations and adds no contradictions.

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 moderately long and front-loaded with the action and classification. However, it includes generic agent response guidelines (assistantSummary, raw JSON, language style) that are not tool-specific and could be omitted, making it less concise than ideal.

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 13-parameter mutation with mutation modes and partial failure semantics, the description lacks essential details: what each mode does, how dryRun relates to the modes, what constitutes a complete flight, and what fields are needed for a successful execute. The output schema is present, but the input semantics are underspecified.

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 13 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description only explains idempotencyKey and the seatId/seatName requirement. It does not describe the meaning or relationships of name, platform, flightId, accountId, campaignId, advertiserId, creativeConfigs, dryRun, expectedVersion, etc., leaving major gaps for an agent to correctly construct a create_flight request.

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 action 'create flight' with a specific verb and resource, and adds 'writes to Studio' to clarify the system context. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like update_flight or validate_flight, but the create verb is unambiguous.

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 provides context about mutation modes, execution durability, and partial failure policy, but it does not explicitly state when to use create_flight over alternatives. It includes a prerequisite that seatId/seatName must be supplied on the exact call for multi-seat writes, which is useful, but lacks exclusions or alternative tool references.

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