Plan a Meta campaign

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the campaign is always created PAUSED, nothing is persisted at plan time, and there is no automatic rollback (must archive in Ads Manager). The no-rollback warning is genuinely useful operational information.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the critical "nothing is written" framing, then the apply path and the rollback caveat. No filler; every clause carries operational meaning.

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 7-parameter planning tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the plan/apply lifecycle and the paused-state constraint adequately. It could note that a plan identifier is produced for use with meta_apply, but the sibling plan_get/plan_list tools and the workflow statement largely cover this.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters including budget minor units and special ad categories. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema does the heavy lifting, but it means no value is added here.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("create a Meta campaign") and immediately scopes it with "PLAN (nothing is written)" and "always PAUSED". It names the sibling that performs the write (meta_apply), so an agent can distinguish planning from execution without opening any schema.

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?

It gives explicit workflow routing: dry-run with validate_only, apply with meta_apply, and activation stays in Ads Manager. That is clear when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't spell out selection versus sibling planners like meta_plan_create_adset or meta_plan_create_ad (the resource name implies it).

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