meta_create_campaign

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the campaign is always created PAUSED so no spend occurs until activation. It does not explain the `confirm` gate despite this being a flagged mutation, which is the main remaining 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the safety-relevant paused default. No filler. Formatting is slightly scattered (parameter notes appear as loose lines), but every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers creation semantics, the paused default, and two parameters — adequate for a six-parameter create. But for a tool flagged destructive, the unexplained `confirm` boolean and missing required-parameter notes leave the agent under-informed.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It clarifies two of six well — daily_budget is in major units and toggles campaign budget optimization, and special_ad_categories accepts [] or values like HOUSING/EMPLOYMENT/FINANCIAL_PRODUCTS_SERVICES. It says nothing about `confirm`, `ad_account_id`, or `name`, leaving a meaningful hole for a destructive operation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Create a new campaign." Clear enough that an agent knows exactly what it produces. However, it does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as meta_update_entity or meta_set_status, which an agent could plausibly confuse with campaign creation/configuration.

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?

Gives concrete decision guidance for the budget parameters: set daily_budget for campaign budget optimization, or omit it to budget at the ad set level. It also implies the follow-up workflow (activate later) by noting the campaign starts PAUSED. No explicit when-not to use or named alternative tools, which keeps it below a 5.

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