create_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a critical non-default behavior: campaigns are created in PAUSED state, which prevents accidental spend. However, it does not disclose return values, error handling, or permission requirements, leaving significant behavioral gaps. The single disclosed behavior is valuable, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 that states the action and a key state detail. There is no fluff or repetition. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.

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?

Despite having a detailed schema, the description is too sparse for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. It lacks high-level workflow context such as what the tool returns (e.g., campaign resource name), how it relates to the many specialized campaign-creation siblings, and the implication of the PAUSED state (e.g., need to call update_campaign_status to activate). This leaves the agent under-informed for real-world use.

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 100% description coverage for all six parameters, including meaningful details like budget units (micros) and the enum for channel type. The description adds no parameter-level information, but the schema already does the heavy lifting. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new campaign.' The parenthetical '(in PAUSED state)' adds a key behavioral detail that distinguishes it from update_campaign_status and signals its creation semantics. This is unambiguous and distinct from specialized campaign creators like create_performance_max_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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance is provided. The mention of PAUSED state hints at a follow-up activation step, but it does not say when to use this tool versus the specialized campaign creation siblings (e.g., create_performance_max_campaign, create_demand_gen_campaign). There are no exclusions or alternatives named.

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