build_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It only says it 'builds' a strategy, which implies creation, but it doesn't state whether this mutates data, requires authentication or permissions, or produces a plan vs. persisting changes. There is no mention of side effects or output behavior.

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 no filler. It states the primary purpose immediately. However, given the tool's complexity and the lack of other documentation, its brevity borders on under-specification, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only provides a high-level purpose with no details on return values, prerequisites, error conditions, or how to use the parameters. It is far from complete for an agent to successfully invoke it without additional context.

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 by explaining parameters. It references 'channel-specific tactics, budgets, and timelines' which loosely map to channels, total_budget, and duration_weeks, but it omits campaign_name, objective, and target_audience entirely. It adds minimal value over the bare schema and fails to clarify required vs optional semantics.

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 states a clear verb ('build') and resource ('complete multi-channel campaign strategy') with specifics like 'channel-specific tactics, budgets, and timelines.' It distinguishes from execution tools like launch_campaign_ad by focusing on strategy creation, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 versus related siblings like schedule_content, optimize_budget, or generate_creatives. The description implies it's for planning but never states usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer when this is the right tool.

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