create_family

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new family' discloses only that this is a creation operation and says nothing about side effects, required campaign context, validation behavior, or response format. This is a significant transparency gap 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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than usefully concise. It essentially restates the tool name and contributes no additional semantic value, so the brevity works against it.

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?

With two required parameters, a nested 'data' object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse to enable a confident invocation. An agent would not know what to put in 'data,' whether campaignId must reference an existing campaign, or what the API returns. The description provides only the high-level purpose, not enough to call the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter. 'campaignId' is nominally understandable as a campaign identifier, but 'data' is left as an opaque object with no indication of what fields or structure are expected. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema detail.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Create a new family.' It clearly indicates a creation operation and distinguishes itself from the get_family, update_family, and delete_family siblings. However, it is a near-paraphrase of the tool name and adds no detail about what a family is or what creating one entails.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing an existing campaign. The only usage signal is the word 'create,' which is implied by the tool name itself. This is effectively no guidance.

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