create_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default PAUSED status and required fields, which is useful. However, it omits what the tool returns (e.g., campaign ID), any conditional requirements beyond the schema, or side effects like which ad account is used. It provides some transparency but not comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no filler. Every sentence adds relevant information: creation, default status, required fields, and budget-level flexibility.

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 tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is brief. It covers the essentials (default status, required fields, budget placement) but does not explain expected return value, conditional parameter interactions (e.g., bid_strategy vs bid_amount), or how it fits into the broader campaign/adset/ad workflow. The thorough schema compensates partially, but the description alone is only minimally 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters. The description adds only high-level guidance (name and objective required, budget placement) which is also present in the schema. This meets the baseline but does not meaningfully enrich parameter understanding.

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 'Create a new ad campaign' with a specific verb and resource, and adds key distinctions such as defaulting to PAUSED status and requiring name/objective. This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_adset and create_ad.

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 gives practical usage context: requires name and objective, and notes that budget can be set at campaign or ad set level. This implies when to use campaign-level vs ad-set-level budgeting, but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use this tool.

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