Api campaigns create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/write profile is covered structurally — but the description adds zero context: no auth requirements, no side effects, no duplicate-handling or validation behavior. The description contributes nothing beyond the annotations, and at least does not contradict them.

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?

It is short, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than tight writing; there is no front-loaded purpose statement or any structure to speak of. A single identifier is not a description.

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 mutation endpoint with an untyped free-form body, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description would need to carry nearly all the load. It carries none, so an agent cannot determine payload requirements, return shape, or error behavior from the definition.

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 there is a single opaque `body` parameter typed only as a free-form object with additionalProperties=true. The description supplies no field names, required keys, or payload shape, leaving the agent with no way to construct a valid request body.

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 is the literal tool identifier 'api_campaigns_create' repeated, which restates the name without saying what a campaign is being created for, what fields it takes, or how it differs from campaigns_update/campaigns_partial_update/campaigns_batch_action_create. An agent learns nothing beyond the name it already has.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives named despite ~15 sibling campaign tools (list, retrieve, update, partial_update, destroy, batch_action_create, metrics, status). Nothing steers the agent between creating one campaign versus using the batch-create endpoint.

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