Link Asset To Campaign

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

With only destructiveHint=false available, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that linking causes the asset to serve with campaign ads, but omits key details such as required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on validation-only calls, or whether existing links are replaced. These gaps leave the agent under-informed for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and outcome efficiently, and every clause earns its place.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values need not be described, and the input schema is fully documented. However, for a mutation tool with minimal annotations, the description still lacks important contextual details such as prerequisites, permissions, or side effects. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 input schema already documents all five parameters in detail, including defaults and examples. The description adds only the example 'call asset' and does not meaningfully expand on parameter meaning beyond the schema. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Links') and names both resource types ('asset' and 'campaign'), making the action unambiguous. It also states the outcome ('so it serves with that campaign's ads'), which helps distinguish it from creation tools like create_call_asset. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool, so it falls short of a full 5.

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 the use case by stating the effect on ads, but provides no explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. It assumes the agent will infer that the asset must already exist and be suitable for linking.

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