ad_manager_fb_upsert_campaign

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

The annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to cover those basics. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the name itself—no mention of what happens on create vs. update, how existing fields are handled, or any side effects. It merely restates the tool's purpose, providing zero value beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise—only two words—but this reflects under-specification rather than efficient compression. It provides no context, no examples, and no structural guidance. While there is zero waste, the extreme brevity fails to earn its place as a useful descriptor, similar to the 'under-specification' case in the calibration low example.

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 tool with six parameters, some enums, and no output schema, this description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain the upsert behavior (e.g., whether it overwrites all fields or only provided ones), how the 'id' parameter distinguishes create vs. update, or any integration requirements. The agent would need to infer all context from the name and schema, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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?

All six parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), including types, enums, and defaults. The description itself contributes no additional parameter information, but since the schema carries the full burden, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not clarify relationships between parameters or usage patterns beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Upsert campaign' states a clear verb and resource, indicating the tool creates or updates a campaign. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_campaign, pause_campaign, or publish_campaign through the verb 'upsert'. However, it doesn't elaborate on what specific aspects of the campaign are managed or how it differs from upsert_ad or upsert_adset, so it lacks deeper differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention whether to use upsert for both creation and update scenarios, when a get_campaign is preferred, or if any prerequisites (like an existing integration) are required. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent without routing context.

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