commerce_personalize_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It mentions routing scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose whether the action is destructive, idempotent, reversible, or what side effects occur (e.g., data changes, external API calls).

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 concise (about 5 lines) and front-loads the action name. It includes relevant routing context, though the technical detail about the dispatcher may not be essential for an AI agent. Overall, it is economical and readable.

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 (not shown), the description does not explain what the tool returns or what constitutes success/failure. In a complex tool with many siblings, more context about the personalization action's purpose and outcomes is needed for the agent to use it 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?

The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. Since schema coverage is 0%, some added value exists, but the descriptions are vague and do not clarify expected formats, constraints, or examples.

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 the tool runs the 'personalize_campaign' action in the commerce domain, and provides routing context (JWT, tenant, company). However, it does not distinguish this tool from similar commerce tools like commerce_campaign_brief or commerce_ab_test, which may also involve campaign-related actions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not to use, or recommended scenarios. The description simply states what it does without contextual usage advice.

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