zuckerbot_create_full_campaign

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

Discloses critical behaviors: dry_run produces a preview without side effects, live mode creates PAUSED Meta objects, auto-activation is disabled, and generated videos link for rejection tracking. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it, though it omits details on idempotency or authentication requirements.

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?

Five sentences with clear structure: purpose, important default, dry_run flow, live mode behavior. Front-loaded with key action. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description covers the main workflow and side effects. It mentions return structure for dry_run (campaign structure) but does not describe the return format for live mode or error handling. Sibling tools context is clear, placing this as a middle step in architect workflow.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the dry_run/activate parameter workflow and the approval process, which is not evident from schema alone. This context helps the agent understand parameter interactions and usage order.

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 it builds a complete PAUSED Meta campaign from an approved Campaign Architect session, using a specific verb ('Build') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like zuckerbot_create_campaign or zuckerbot_launch_campaign by emphasizing the session-based, approval-driven workflow.

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?

Explicitly states the dry_run default, the safe preview, and the need for customer approval before setting dry_run=false. It also mentions that live mode creates PAUSED objects and auto-activation is disabled. Implicitly positions the tool after an approved architect session, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like zuckerbot_activate_campaign.

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