vast_create_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a new VAST campaign,' which is a generic action and does not reveal whether the operation requires special permissions, whether it immediately persists or is staged, what side effects occur, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap 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 a single short sentence, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is so minimal that it borders on tautology, restating the tool's name without adding meaningful detail. While there is no waste, the lack of content reduces its value.

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 tool's context—three parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a vast sibling set including create_campaign and draft_create_campaign—this description is far too sparse. It fails to explain return values, prerequisites, or how it differs from related creation tools, making it inadequate for an agent to reliably select and invoke the tool.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (name, contract, advertiser) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema adequately documents each parameter's meaning.

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 'Create a new VAST campaign' uses a specific verb (Create) and resource (VAST campaign), and the 'VAST' prefix distinguishes it from generic campaign tools like create_campaign. However, it does not specify what a VAST campaign entails or how it differs from other VAST-related creation tools like vast_create_schedule or vast_create_ad_item.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_campaign, draft_create_campaign, or vast42_create_campaign. No prerequisites (e.g., advertiser must exist) or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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