add_campaigns

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses critical behaviors: the confirm parameter for dry-run vs. actual creation, the money note about micros, and the detailed bidding strategy options. However, it does not mention error handling, permissions, or whether creation is asynchronous, which are minor gaps.

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?

The description is front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, then structured into args with examples and a money note. While somewhat lengthy due to the bidding strategy details, each part is necessary for correct usage; however, minor redundancy (e.g., repeating 'required' multiple times) could be trimmed.

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?

Given the complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers campaign structure, confirm behavior, and micros. It lacks an explanation of the return value or error scenarios, but the dry-run mention partially addresses output. Overall, it is comprehensive enough for an agent to invoke 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing every field of the `campaigns` array parameter: required fields (Name, StartDate), optional fields (EndDate, DailyBudget, NegativeKeywords), and the complex TextCampaign structure with multiple bidding strategy examples. This adds immense value beyond the bare schema.

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 starts with 'Create one or more TEXT_CAMPAIGN campaigns,' which clearly specifies the action (create), the resource (campaigns), and the specific type (TEXT_CAMPAIGN). This distinguishes it from siblings like add_ad_groups or add_ads, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 implicitly indicates usage for creation, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like update_campaigns or when not to use it (e.g., for non-TEXT_CAMPAIGN types). No exclusions or context are provided for deciding between siblings.

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