remove_campaign_creatorsRemoves approved creator IDs or a saved selection from a campaign after confirmation, using a retry key to prevent duplicate removal requests.
Remove explicitly approved creator IDs or a prepared selection from a campaign. Requires confirmation and a stable retry key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | ||
| campaign_id | Yes | ||
| confirmation | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds useful operational context — that an authorization confirmation and a stable idempotency key are mandatory — but that requirement is also visible in the schema const/pattern, and it never says what actually happens to removed creators, whether the operation is reversible, or how a retry replays.
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 short sentences, no filler, and the scope statement comes first with the preconditions second. Every sentence carries operational weight.
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?
This is a destructive mutation with four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and nested oneOf branching in the target. The description does not cover consequences (are creators detached from the campaign or deleted outright?), the 100-id cap, whether a snapshot selection is consumed on use, or the failure/retry semantics, leaving an agent under-informed before a write.
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% across all four required parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at the two target modes ('creator IDs or a prepared selection') but says nothing about campaign_id, the max-100 id limit, the confirmation semantics, or why the idempotency key must be stable across retries.
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 ('Remove ... creator IDs or a prepared selection from a campaign') and names both supported target modes, which clearly separates it from add_campaign_creator and update_campaign_creator. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as the counterpoint, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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 states preconditions ('Requires confirmation and a stable retry key') but gives no guidance on when to choose the ids mode versus the snapshot mode, and never points to prepare_campaign_creator_selection as the source of a selection_id. Usage is implied by the schema shape rather than explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.