export_campaign

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'export' which implies read-only, but does not disclose whether this operation is destructive, requires authentication, or what side effects occur (e.g., file generation). The behavior is under-specified for a tool with no 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?

One sentence, no unnecessary words. However, it could be more structured by front-loading the key action first. Still, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and no annotations, the description leaves open questions: what is the output format? Does it download a file or return data inline? What constitutes 'all related assets'? Compared to sibling tools, the usage context is ambiguous.

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 100% (campaignId described in schema as 'Campaign ID to export'). Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description does not clarify the expected format or constraints of the parameter.

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 verb 'export' and the resource 'campaign data with all related assets', providing specific purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_campaign (which likely returns campaign metadata only) but could be more explicit about the scope of 'all related assets'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_campaign, clone_campaign). No mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or limitations. Agent must infer context from tool name alone.

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