Save Search Results To Campaign

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

Annotations already declare this to be a non-destructive write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds that saving is server-side using a search_id. It does not disclose whether saving appends or replaces roster entries, how duplicates are handled, what permissions are required, or how limit constrains the save. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, source, destination, and mechanism directly.

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 five-parameter write tool with only 40% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is under-specified. An agent still lacks guidance on optional parameters and the server-side roster mutation semantics, which are important for invoking this 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 only 40%, with search_id and campaign_id described in the schema. The description mentions search_id but adds no meaning beyond the schema, and it leaves limit, reference_id, and excluded_origin_ids completely unexplained in both schema and description. 'Selected or top-ranked' loosely hints at limit but does not document it.

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 ('Save'), resource ('creator search results to a campaign roster'), and source mechanism ('using search_id'). It implicitly distinguishes bulk saving from single-creator siblings like add_campaign_creator, though it does not name an alternative tool.

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?

Usage is implied: use after a creator search with selected or top-ranked results. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternatives such as add_campaign_creator, prepare_campaign_creator_selection, or copy_campaign_creators.

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