Create Search Campaign

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the non-obvious behavioral trait that the campaign is created paused, that nothing spends until an explicit resume, and that geo/language defaults come from environment variables when omitted. It does not mention permission/auth requirements or what happens on partial failure, which leaves a gap for a multi-entity mutation.

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 most important fact, that the campaign is created paused, is front-loaded in the first clause, and each subsequent sentence carries practical information. It is slightly dense with environment variable names, but nothing is padding.

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-value documentation is not required, and the description covers the key defaults and safety behavior. Still, for a 9-parameter mutation with zero schema description coverage and no annotations, the unexplained confirm_token and several required fields leave an agent without enough to invoke confidently.

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 compensate, and it explains geo_target_ids and language_ids as Google criterion IDs with concrete examples (2076 = Brazil, 1014 = Portuguese), plus budget_id's reuse semantics and the account-currency rule for amounts. However, confirm_token, customer_id, name, ad_group_name, daily_budget and default_cpc get no explanation at all, and confirm_token in particular is left entirely opaque.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a PAUSED Search campaign') and enumerates exactly what is created: budget, location/language targeting, and one ad group. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_ad_group or create_keyword, which build sub-resources rather than whole campaigns.

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?

It states clearly when this tool applies and explains the deliberate paused state so the agent knows a resume step is required later. It also gives a concrete reuse scenario for budget_id (recovering a sequence that failed after budget creation), but it does not explicitly contrast itself with batching alternatives such as composing create_ad_group manually.

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