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

With annotations only marking it as a non-idempotent, non-destructive write, the description carries real weight: it discloses the exact defaults applied (manual type, workspace Meta traffic source, healthy default domain, empty flow), the linking profile, the return payload (campaign, click URL, editor URL), the campaigns.create permission need, and that it consumes the plan's campaign cap. That is substantive behavior beyond structured fields.

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 front-loaded sentence that opens with the trigger and action before layering defaults, outputs, and constraints. Dense but every clause adds information; only minor cost is the packed parenthetical.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, it covers defaults, side effects (cap consumption), auth requirement, and return values well. The remaining gap is parameter-level meaning for the three required inputs, which neither schema nor description fully resolves.

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 coverage is only 25% and the description does little to compensate: it never explains ad_account_id or fb_campaign_id, nor the nested fb_user object's role, and it only loosely gestures at user identity via 'logged-in FB user'. Its mention of naming 'after the Facebook campaign' actually conflicts slightly with the optional fb_campaign_name override documented in the schema.

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 composite verb+resource: creates a tracker campaign (manual type, Meta traffic source, default domain, empty default flow) and links the FB campaign under the tokenless profile. That is well beyond a restatement of the name. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the create_campaign and link_meta_campaign siblings, though the 'one click' framing implies the composite operation.

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?

'One click from an Ads Manager row' gives a clear entry context, so an agent can infer the intended workflow. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. create_campaign+link_meta_campaign guidance and no stated exclusions or preconditions beyond the permission/cap note.

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