launch_campaign_ad

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the approval requirement ('REQUIRES APPROVAL') and implies a write/mutation operation ('Launch'). However, it doesn't elaborate on authorization specifics, consequences (e.g., financial commitment), reversibility, or what happens upon approval for a high-stakes action. The single warning adds value but is insufficient for a mutation with no annotation coverage.

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 a concise single sentence that front-loads the critical warning and states the core action. No wasted words. However, it may be too terse given the tool's complexity, but terseness alone doesn't harm conciseness if it communicates essentials—which it partially does.

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 description is minimal for a tool with 5 parameters (2 required), a mutation, an approval requirement, and no output schema. It doesn't explain return values, parameter formats beyond what's in the schema, platform-specific behaviors, or how it differs from the many sibling campaign-related tools. An agent would have to guess or inspect the schema, which is incomplete. The warning is useful but leaves many operational gaps.

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 only 40% (targeting and ad_creative have descriptions, but platform, budget_daily, and campaign_name do not). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, leaving those undocumented parameters without any guidance. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, e.g., it doesn't explain that 'targeting' and 'ad_creative' are JSON strings with expected structure, nor what 'budget_daily' defaults to.

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 action ('Launch a campaign ad') and resource (the ad), and mentions integration platforms (Meta, LinkedIn, Google Ads). However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'build_campaign' or 'hub_send_campaign', and the enum includes platforms not mentioned in the description (HubSpot, Salesforce), creating slight ambiguity.

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 alternatives. The warning 'REQUIRES APPROVAL' implies a prerequisite but does not explain when this tool is appropriate or why one might choose it over sibling tools like 'build_campaign' or 'optimize_budget'. No exclusions or alternative routing provided.

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