zuckerbot_approve_campaign_strategy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'locks in the plan' but does not explain whether the action is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what the response looks like. This is minimal for a potentially critical mutation operation.

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 just two sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence states the action and optional parameters, the second provides workflow context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 lacks return value information (no output schema) and does not cover prerequisites or side effects beyond the sequential dependency. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining that tier_names and angle_names are 'optional subsets' for narrowing approval, clarifying their purpose in context. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 tool approves an AI-generated intelligence strategy for a campaign, with optional narrowing to specific tiers and angles. It distinguishes from siblings by naming two subsequent tools that depend on this approval, making its role unique.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('before creative production starts') and provides a required sequence ('Required before calling zuckerbot_request_creative or zuckerbot_upload_creative'). However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools for different scenarios.

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