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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which cover safety expectations. The description adds minimal behavioral context ('before prepare') but does not elaborate on side effects or data modifications, so the added value is modest.

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, succinct sentence with no redundant words or structural complexity. It is well-formatted and easy to parse, though its brevity contributes to the lack of detail.

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 the complexity of the input schema (nested objects, required fields, max/min constraints) and the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description is extremely sparse. It fails to explain the request structure, the meaning of 'reconcile', expected outcomes, or any error scenarios, making the tool nearly unusable without external knowledge.

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?

The schema has a nested request object with multiple required fields (e.g., ad_account_id, target_campaign_id, requested_items), but the description mentions none of them. There is zero parameter explanation, making it impossible to infer correct usage from the description alone.

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 action ('Reconcile') on a resource ('fixed existing-Ad campaign plans') and a phase ('before prepare'), but it lacks clarity on what 'reconcile' entails and does not distinguish this tool from other campaign-related siblings like campaigns_quick_create or campaigns_recreate_from_task.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'before prepare' hints at a workflow sequence but does not clarify selection criteria or prerequisites, leaving the agent without explicit usage instructions.

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