add_audience_to_campaign

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, but 'Apply audience targeting to a campaign' reveals nothing about side effects, prerequisites, whether it appends or replaces existing audiences, or the result of the operation. The description is entirely silent on behavior beyond the bare action, making it nearly useless for anticipating the tool's effects.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it may be too terse, missing opportunities to add useful context without being verbose, so it does not achieve a perfect 5.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description fails to explain whether the operation is additive, whether it requires any prerequisites (e.g., audience already exists, campaign is active), or what the outcome is. Even though the parameter schema is complete, the behavioral context is severely lacking, making the description incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

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 provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (audienceId, campaignId, customerId), meeting the schema_description_coverage high threshold. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Apply audience targeting to a campaign' clearly identifies the action (apply) and the resource (audience targeting to a campaign), distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_audience_from_campaign. However, it is essentially a paraphrase of the tool name without adding broader scope or explicit differentiation, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where adding an audience is appropriate, nor any exclusions or references to sibling tools such as remove_audience_from_campaign or get_audiences. This is a clear lack of usage direction.

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