ebay_create_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only mentions supported funding models but does not disclose side effects (e.g., resource creation), authentication needs, rate limits, or idempotency. For a creation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence, very concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the action. However, it could benefit from a bit more structure to include key details.

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 complexity of the input schema (nested object with multiple fields and enums) and no output schema, the description is minimal. The schema covers parameter details, but the description does not explain campaign object requirements or what the tool returns. Moderate completeness.

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?

Baseline is 3 due to 100% schema description coverage. The description adds context about CPS and CPC, but the schema already describes fundingModel and bidPercentage well. No additional meaning beyond the schema is provided.

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 action ('Create a new marketing campaign') and the resource ('marketing campaign'). It also specifies support for two funding models (CPS and CPC), which differentiates it from other campaign-related tools like bulk or clone. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar tools like setup_quick_campaign, so it could be slightly more specific.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bulk_create_campaign, clone_campaign). It only states what it does, implying usage but without exclusionary context.

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