create_campaign

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

Annotations only indicate non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds crucial behavioral details: campaigns are created in PAUSED state, and there is a dependency between CBO and conversion_pixel_id (a Reddit mandate). This goes beyond the annotation hints.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. It efficiently communicates key behaviors without unnecessary detail. However, the second sentence could be slightly restructured for clarity. Overall it earns its place.

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?

With 6 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers the main behavioral expectations: creation state and CBO dependency. It does not explain return values, but that's acceptable without an output schema. It could optionally mention idempotency or error cases, but it's reasonably 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for conversion_pixel_id and is_campaign_budget_optimization by explaining their relationship and requirement. For other parameters like name, objective, account_id, spend_cap_usd, it does not add beyond schema. The description does not compensate for gaps since there are none.

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 creates a campaign, with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('campaign'). Among sibling tools, only this one creates campaigns, so it's well-distinguished.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: it specifies that campaigns are always created PAUSED and that a conversion pixel id is required when CBO is on, with a mandate date. It gives a concrete example of where to find the pixel id. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.

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