draft_create_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the draft nature but omits important details such as whether the draft is immutable, what validation is performed, or what the response contains. The description is too sparse for a mutation tool.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has a nested object parameter with no specified subfields, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain what 'standard campaign fields' are, how the draft relates to other draft operations, or what happens after creation. This is a significant gap for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 schema description covers the single parameter at 100% ('Object containing standard campaign fields'), and the tool description only restates this by saying fields go inside a 'draft' wrapper. No new meaning is added beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('new draft standard campaign'), clearly distinguishing it from create_campaign and other draft-related tools. It immediately clarifies that this is for creating a draft, not a live campaign.

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 implies usage through the word 'draft' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_campaign or draft_save_campaign. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the name.

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