Draft: create a campaign + budget

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses several critical behaviors: the campaign is created PAUSED by default to prevent spending, it returns a draftId, and final creation requires confirm_write. This goes beyond simple mutation and explains the draft-then-confirm pattern.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by key behavioral details. Every sentence provides essential context with no wasted words.

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 4-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core workflow (draft, paused, draftId, confirm_write). It lacks some peripheral details like what happens to the draft after creation or prerequisites, but it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool 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 coverage is only 25% (only startEnabled has a description). The description adds meaning for dailyBudgetDollars ('its own daily budget') and startEnabled ('PAUSED by default'), but name and channelType are left to the schema's basic types/enums. It partially compensates for the low coverage.

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 clearly states the action: 'Draft a new campaign with its own daily budget.' It distinguishes this from a final creation by explicitly noting it returns a draftId and requires confirm_write to actually create. This sets it apart from siblings like confirm_write and update_campaign_status.

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 implies when to use it: when you want to draft a campaign rather than immediately activate it. It also instructs to 'call confirm_write to actually create it,' providing a clear next step. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like create_responsive_search_ad, but the workflow is well-defined.

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