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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and meets it impressively. It discloses: serial execution after confirmation, one receipt journaled per created entity, stopping on uncertain outcomes, never publishing by itself, validation on one advertiser/authorization route, and the template_required/needs_input error behavior for missing selectors. This is rich behavioral context an agent needs.

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 long, but it is dense rather than padded — every sentence carries operational meaning for a 14-parameter tool. The core purpose and safety contract are front-loaded in the first paragraph. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though a handful of sentences could arguably be tightened.

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 tool's complexity (14 params, no annotations, no output schema, many siblings), the description is remarkably complete. It covers required fields, exclusions (Smart+), identity normalization rules, CAROUSEL_ADS objective compatibility, error behavior, the confirmation handoff, and the append-mode semantics. There is nothing an agent needs to call this tool safely that 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the critical parameters: template_id/template_name as the required selector ('A saved template_id or exact template_name is required'), batch_items (order preservation, creative requirements), advertiser_id, append_mode (new/append-campaign/append-adgroup with exact receipts), ad_params identity overrides, and the creative fields for Spark items (identity_id, identity_type, tiktok_item_id, spark_receipt). Some params like target_campaign_id, parent_preview_receipt, and campaign_name are not individually explained, but the ones essential to correct execution are covered.

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 opening sentence is precise: 'Prepare one bounded manual TikTok hierarchy containing 2..20 ads under the same campaign and ad group, preserving batch_items order.' It names the verb (prepare), the resource (TikTok hierarchy), and the scope (2-20 ads). It clearly distinguishes itself from the single-create sibling campaigns_quick_create by explicitly contrasting the batch flow with the single-ad path.

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?

Explicit routing is provided: 'Smart+ is intentionally excluded... must be passed to campaigns_quick_create with one ad_params.creative_list instead' and 'Never fan out single-create calls.' The confirmation flow is explicit: 'show the sanitized plan and call campaigns_quick_create_confirm once only after explicit approval.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool vs. its siblings and what the follow-up step is.

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