create_campaign

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

The description discloses critical side effects: the campaign is created PAUSED by default, configured as a Search campaign with Manual CPC and Google Search + search partners, and the operation is a dry run unless confirm=True. This is substantial behavioral context, especially with no annotations provided.

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 compact and information-dense: action, defaults, safety rationale, and dry-run behavior are all covered in four sentences. Every sentence provides distinct value without redundancy.

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?

The essential behavioral context is covered: defaults, dry-run behavior, and next steps. However, since there is no output schema, it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., a preview or campaign ID), nor does it mention error conditions or permission requirements. These are moderate gaps for a mutating tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining default values for status (PAUSED), advertising_channel_type (SEARCH), and confirm (dry run). It also clarifies that budget_id references an existing budget, adding meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 states the tool creates a campaign attached to an existing budget, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_campaign_budget (which creates a budget) and update_campaign_status (which modifies status).

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 establishes a prerequisite (existing budget) and mentions a follow-up action via update_campaign_status. However, it doesn't explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool or alternatives for creation scenarios.

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