adtech_launch_campaign

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

The description discloses that it is a write operation requiring confirmation (需 confirm), and indicates it reuses an underlying NL→campaign capability. However, it does not explain what the 'M4 合流点' means, what side effects occur (e.g., creating a campaign), or whether the operation is reversible. With no annotations, the description bears the full burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. However, the second sentence contains opaque jargon ('M4 合流点') that adds little for a general reader, slightly reducing clarity and efficiency.

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 tool's complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description lacks important context such as what a launch entails, what the dry-run preview will look like, and the meaning of the 'M4 合流点' reference. It is not fully self-contained for an agent to understand all consequences of invocation.

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?

The schema already covers all four parameters with clear descriptions (text, op_id, reason, confirm). The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—it reiterates the NL launch and confirmation requirement but does not elaborate on idempotency, audit purpose, or dry-run behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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's purpose: launching a campaign from a one-sentence natural language description (NL→campaign). It identifies the verb (起投/launch), the object (campaign), and the method (NL), and distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, adjust, or set campaign status.

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 implies usage for creating/launching new campaigns via natural language, and mentions reusing an existing ad-tech-labs capability. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., adtech_set_campaign_status or adtech_adjust_bid), leaving the decision to inference.

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