Copy Campaign Creators

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing that it returns source and destination IDs and that the idempotency key should be reused on retries — behavior not derivable from annotations. It stops short of saying what happens on duplicate creators, partial failures, or whether the copy is atomic.

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 dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The retry/idempotency note is compact but slightly telegraphic, leaving the reader to infer that the same key prevents duplicate copies.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, a nested oneOf target, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the essentials of what to pass and what comes back. Gaps remain around size limits, duplicate handling, and whether the destination campaign must be in the same workspace — details an agent would need to call this confidently.

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%, so the description must carry the load; it does map prose onto all four required params (creator IDs or selection, campaign_id as source, destination campaign, idempotency key). It omits important constraints the schema enforces silently — the 100-item cap on creator_ids, the UUID format for selection_id, and the max length on the key.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Copy ... creators ... into another campaign") and distinguishes the two supported sources: exact creator IDs or a prepared selection. It is clearly differentiated from the singular add_campaign_creator and from save_search_results_to_campaign, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

"Copy exact creator IDs or a prepared selection" implies when each mode applies, and the retry note implies the idempotency workflow. However there is no explicit routing guidance such as when to prefer this over add_campaign_creator or save_search_results_to_campaign, and no stated preconditions (e.g. that a selection must be prepared first via prepare_campaign_creator_selection).

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