Create campaign

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

Annotations only indicate a non-read, non-destructive operation. The description adds significant behavioral context: default PAUSED status, no spend, the exact condition for ACTIVE, the need for funding_instrument_id, and the warning that budgets are per ad group. This goes well beyond what annotations provide and prevents costly mistakes.

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?

Four short, dense sentences with no filler. The most important safety detail (PAUSED by default, no spend) is front-loaded, and each sentence adds necessary operational guidance.

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 5-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key call-critical concerns: default status, spend safety, required funding instrument, budget placement, and naming. It doesn't describe the return value, but that is not essential for correct invocation. Slightly more detail on what the API returns would make it fully complete.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify entity_status (PAUSED default, ACTIVE only with confirm_spend=true), confirm_spend (needed for ACTIVE), funding_instrument_id (required), and name (don't invent names). account_id is already described in the schema. It doesn't deeply explain confirm_spend semantics, but the critical usage is clear.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a campaign'. It also adds key detail that the campaign is created PAUSED by default, which distinguishes it from a generic create call. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like x_ads_create_ad_group or x_ads_update_campaign, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 gives strong usage constraints: campaigns are paused by default, ACTIVE requires confirm_spend=true and an explicit user ask, and budgets should not be passed. However, it never names alternatives or explicitly says when to choose this tool over a sibling, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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