commerce_personalize_campaign

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

Annotations already flag this as non-read-only, non-idempotent, destructive, and open-world. The description adds useful execution context by stating it routes through the domain-agent dispatcher under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, it does not say what side effects may occur, what data may change, or what the returned output represents, so the behavioral picture remains incomplete.

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 well-structured: an action summary, a routing sentence, and a short Args list. No filler is present, and the most identifying line comes first. It could be slightly more informative without becoming bloated, but the organization is good.

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 that this is a dispatch-style action with no required params and an output schema, the description is barely sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It does not explain what 'personalize_campaign' accomplishes, what inputs to populate for common objectives, or when choosing this over the many sibling commerce tools is appropriate. A generic wrapper description is not enough for confident selection and invocation.

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 no property descriptions in the schema, the description must compensate. It does provide basic semantic labels: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This is more than the bare schema, but it leaves out what structured inputs are accepted, whether they are required for any common use, and how they combine with message.

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 action ('Run the commerce domain agent action personalize_campaign') and clarifies it routes through a dispatcher, so an agent knows it is invoking a particular named action. However, it never explains what personalizing a campaign actually does, and the phrasing partially restates the tool name. It does not distinguish this from related commerce tools like commerce_campaign_brief.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative. There are no use-case conditions, no exclusions, and no mention of related commerce actions such as commerce_chat or dispatch_domain_agent. An agent is left to infer selection from the name alone.

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