commerce_campaign_brief

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

The description adds some useful context by stating it routes through the domain-agent dispatcher under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, and the description does not disclose what side effects campaign_brief may trigger or what resources it might create or modify.

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 compact and scannable, with a clear Args section and no filler. It front-loads the core action statement and keeps each sentence purposeful. It could be more informative without being longer, but it is appropriately concise.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits the action's purpose, what kind of inputs are expected, and what side effects may occur. Given destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, an agent needs more context to invoke this safely. As written, it is a generic dispatcher template that could apply to almost any domain action.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It meaningfully defines message as "Free-text objective for the action" and inputs as "Optional JSON string of structured inputs," which goes beyond the bare schema. It lacks detail on the expected JSON structure or examples of valid inputs, so it is not a 5.

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: "Run the commerce domain agent action `campaign_brief`." This identifies exactly which action is invoked, but it never explains what a campaign brief actually does or what outcome it produces, so an agent must infer meaning from the action name alone. It does not semantically differentiate this from sibling commerce actions such as commerce_personalize_campaign.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative commerce actions, and no mention of cases where it should or should not be selected. The routing context (JWT, tenant, company scope) explains execution conditions but not selection criteria.

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