create_meta_campaign

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

The annotation 'destructiveHint: true' already indicates this is a mutation/write operation. The description adds minimal context by specifying it creates a campaign, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on failure. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds little beyond them.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool has a destructive annotation and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic action. It doesn't explain return values or error handling, which could be useful for a creation tool. With annotations handling safety, it's adequate but lacks depth for a mutation operation.

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 fully documents the three parameters (name, objective, daily_budget) with descriptions and an enum for objective. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('Meta (Facebook/Instagram) advertising campaign'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_linkedin_campaign' or 'create_search_campaign' by specifying the Meta platform, but doesn't fully differentiate from all campaign creation tools (e.g., 'create_display_campaign' vs. 'create_meta_campaign' might have overlapping scope).

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 like 'create_linkedin_campaign' or 'create_search_campaign', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an ad account or campaign structure. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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