Change locations

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining this mutation. It does not say whether the update replaces the entire location set or is additive, whether it affects live/active campaigns, or what permissions are needed — meaningful omissions for a mutating 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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined trimming.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, only a readOnlyHint annotation, and an open-ended input object, the description omits payload shape, mutation semantics, and validation rules. An agent could not reliably invoke this correctly from the definition alone.

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 declares zero properties with additionalProperties=true, which ironically means the agent most needs the description to learn the expected field names (campaign identifier, location list) — and it supplies none. The 0-param baseline of 4 is reduced because the free-form schema leaves the caller guessing the payload shape.

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?

"Change the places a campaign shows in" identifies a verb (change) and a resource (campaign locations/geo-targeting), but it is close to a restatement of the title "Change locations" and never uses the domain term (targeting/geo/placements), nor says whether it adds, removes, or replaces locations. It does not distinguish it from siblings like search_ad_targeting or launch_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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., campaign must exist, must be editable), and no mention of alternatives such as search_ad_targeting for discovering valid locations. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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