synter-mcp-server

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already indicates this is a write/mutation operation. The description adds value by specifying this creates a 'campaign' (implying a persistent resource) and mentions 'community-based advertising' (context about Reddit's targeting approach). However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if creation fails.

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 ('create a Reddit Ads campaign') and adds qualifying context ('for community-based advertising'). There is zero wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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?

For a destructive tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose clearly but lacks guidance on usage, error handling, or return values. The annotations cover the destructive nature, but more context about the creation process would be helpful given the complexity.

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 all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no clarification on subreddits vs interests targeting). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full parameter documentation burden.

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 'Reddit Ads campaign' with the specific context 'for community-based advertising'. It distinguishes from siblings like create_linkedin_campaign or create_meta_campaign by specifying the Reddit platform, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other Reddit-related tools (none exist in the sibling list).

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 alternatives like create_display_campaign or create_search_campaign. It mentions 'community-based advertising' which hints at Reddit's platform focus, but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites for campaign creation.

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