create_campaign_feedback

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'Authenticated via API key. Max 10 concurrent requests. Respects read-only and dry-run modes.' This discloses authentication, rate limits, and mode support, which are not covered by annotations.

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 well-structured with a lead-in sentence, usage context, parameter details, and return info. It is concise with no redundant text. Every sentence adds value.

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 description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, authentication, rate limits, parameters, return values, and a reference to a sibling tool. The output schema is mentioned, so the agent knows what to expect.

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 fully explains each parameter in the Args section. campaign_id is linked to list_campaigns/search_campaigns, message is described as feedback text, block_id is optional and attaches to a content block, and account is explained with an example and configuration hint.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Add a team collaboration feedback comment to a campaign.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_campaign_feedback and get_campaign_feedback by specifying the action of adding a comment.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use to leave review notes for teammates during campaign preparation.' It also suggests an alternative: 'Use list_campaign_feedback to review existing comments.' This provides clear guidance.

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