zuckerbot_suggest_angles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly states what the tool returns (creative angles and audience tiers) and what it omits (stored creatives, tier execution details), implying a read-only subset operation. However, it does not mention side effects, auth needs, or error conditions.

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 single sentence that front-loads the action and result, followed by the contrasting sibling tool. Every word is necessary; no wasted verbiage.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage alternative, and output scope. It could mention that the campaign_id must exist, but otherwise is sufficiently complete.

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% with campaign_id described simply as 'Campaign ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 that the tool returns 'creative angles and audience tiers' for a campaign draft, and explicitly differentiates itself from sibling tool zuckerbot_get_campaign by calling itself a 'lightweight alternative' that omits stored creatives and tier execution details.

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 advises use when needing 'just the strategy summary without the full campaign payload', and names the alternative tool zuckerbot_get_campaign that provides the full payload, along with what that includes.

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