create_campaign_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It only mentions budget type validation, but omits other important behaviors like return value, side effects, error handling, or idempotency. This is insufficient for a creation tool.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, 12 words, without fluff. It front-loads the purpose and key behavior.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, what happens on validation failure, or any other contextual details needed for an agent to invoke it correctly. The high schema coverage helps but is not enough.

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 80%, so most parameters are already described. The description adds value by noting cross-parameter validation (budget consistency), though it does not explain what consistency means or how to achieve it.

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 action (create) and resource (campaign group), and adds a specific behavior (budget validation). It distinguishes from siblings like update_campaign_group and bulk_create_campaign_groups by being a single creation, but doesn't differentiate from create_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?

The description implies usage for creating a campaign group, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bulk_create_campaign_groups or create_campaign. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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