zuckerbot_launch_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool creates real ads and immediately spends budget, which is a critical behavioral consequence. It also mentions auto-resolution of stored credentials and the A/B testing behavior of launch_all_variants. This far exceeds typical disclosure for a mutation endpoint.

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 the most critical warning (money endpoint) front-loaded. Every word serves purpose: the alternative routing, precondition, and variant behavior are all packed efficiently without redundancy.

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?

For a high-stakes mutation tool with no output schema and 8 parameters, the description covers the key risks (budget spend, credential resolution) and provides routing guidance. The schema handles parameter details. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 value by explaining the distinction between campaign_id types and the effect of launch_all_variants (auto-optimization), which goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions. However, it doesn't elaborate on overrides like radius_km or daily_budget_cents, but those are self-explanatory.

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?

Clearly states the action (launch a draft campaign), the resource (Meta/Facebook), and distinguishes from siblings by noting it uses ZuckerBot campaign IDs, not Meta IDs (which are for zuckerbot_resume_campaign). The 'MONEY ENDPOINT' warning makes its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit precondition: confirm budget and Meta connectivity via zuckerbot_meta_status. Names an alternative (zuckerbot_resume_campaign) for Meta IDs, and explains when to use launch_all_variants. This is exemplary guidance for when to call.

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