direct.create_campaigns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses very little. It does not say the call is a mutation with side effects, whether creation is atomic or batch-fail-partial, what permissions/Client-Login are needed, or how errors surface for a multi-item array.

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 with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than serving conciseness.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object array of campaign payloads, the definition is far too thin. An agent lacks anything about batch semantics, failure behavior, or credential prerequisites needed to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents items, params, account_id, and direct_client_login. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb (create) and resource (campaigns) scoped to Yandex Direct, so the agent knows exactly what operation it performs. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like direct.update_campaigns or direct.create_adgroups, relying on the name to do that work.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (credentials, account context), and no routing to alternatives such as direct.hf.clone_campaign or direct.hf.create_adgroup_simple despite a dense sibling set. The agent must infer the entire selection context.

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