add_callouts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It excellently discloses the safety-critical dry-run behavior ('Dry run unless confirm=true') and the character limit. It does not describe edge cases or side effects beyond creation, but the core mutation behavior is clear.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the key constraint is embedded parenthetically, and the safety-critical dry-run caveat is stated directly. Excellent conciseness.

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 tool with an output schema and a relatively simple parameter set, the description covers the essential behavior: what it creates, the constraint, the target, and the confirmation gate. It is slightly incomplete because customer_id's role is not explained and sibling-tool routing is absent, but it remains sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 compensate. It clarifies 'callouts' (<=25 chars) and 'confirm' (controls dry-run vs actual creation), but it does not explain 'customer_id' or add meaningful detail about 'campaign_id' beyond the obvious campaign attachment context.

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 clearly states a specific action and resource: create callout assets and attach them to a campaign. It also adds the constraint of <=25 chars per callout, which helps distinguish it from generic asset creation. Although sibling tools are not explicitly named, the resource type 'callouts' is unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is used when callout assets need to be created and attached to a campaign, giving clear context. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool or choose an alternative sibling like add_sitelinks or add_structured_snippet.

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