zuckerbot_create_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It excels by stating that legacy mode is the only launch-ready path, that intelligence mode 'cannot be activated', that it 'does not spend money or create anything on Meta', and that it only produces a draft that must be reviewed — these are materially important safety and state facts. No contradiction with annotations exists because none were provided.

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?

Three sentences with zero filler: primary purpose first, then the mode limitation, then the critical side effect ('does not spend money or create anything on Meta') and the follow-up action. Every sentence adds information that is not a restatement of the schema.

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 omits any hints at that a draft's output shape or lifecycle (e.g. what the returned draft ________ variable contains, how the caller should use it with preview_campaign). There is no output schema as a second signal, so the description should indicate that the result is a multi-section draft ready for review and downstream handoffs. The mode note and the follow-up tool call do carry the agent a lot of the way, but a small 'return design' clarification is absent.

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 100%, so the schema documents every parameter, including enums, defaults, and nested goal/location/creative fields. The description adds only minor parameter-level context (reiterating that legacy mode is the default and launch-ready), which slightly reinforces the mode semantics but doesn't compensate for anything the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource — 'Create a new campaign draft for a business' — which clearly distinguishes it from launch and activation tools. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from zuckerbot_create_full_campaign or zuckerbot_create_campaign_from_spec, but the 'draft' framing plus the launch_campaign handoff makes the primary purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear usage context: it creates a draft, does not spend money or touch Meta, and the agent is told to review the draft and then use zuckerbot_launch_campaign. It implicitly excludes zuckerbot_launch_campaign and zuckerbot_activate_campaign for this step, but it doesn't explicitly compare against the other draft/creation siblings (create_full_campaign, create_campaign_from_spec, quickstart).

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