vast42_create_campaign_assignment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates 'Create' (a mutation) but does not mention whether existing campaign/ad_item references are validated, what response format to expect, or whether the operation has side effects. This leaves significant behavioral context undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It efficiently conveys the core action and resource, earning full marks for conciseness and structure.

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 tool with 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks context about the meaning of a 'campaign assignment', how it relates to VAST 4.2 specifics, and when to use this over the sibling 'draft_create_campaign_assignment' or non-versioned 'create_campaign_assignment'. The minimal detail under-serves the agent.

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 input schema describes all three parameters (active, ad_item, campaign) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, but the schema already provides adequate semantic context for each field.

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 a specific action ('Create') applied to a specific resource ('VAST 4.2 campaign assignment'), which distinguishes it from read/update/delete siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the non-versioned 'create_campaign_assignment' or the 'draft_create_campaign_assignment' tools, relying on the name prefix.

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 the many related sibling tools (e.g., draft_create_campaign_assignment, create_campaign_assignment, vast42_update_campaign_assignment). The description merely restates the purpose without any contextual hints about prerequisites or workflow.

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