create_campaign

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds important behavioral details: the operation is a single atomic creation involving both budget and campaign, and campaigns start as PAUSED by default for safety. This informs the agent about side effects and safety defaults that annotations alone do not convey. No contradiction with 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 clear intro followed by an Args bullet list. There is minor redundancy between the first and second sentences (both convey creation of a campaign and budget), but overall it is focused and each bullet 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 11 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is impressively complete on inputs, covering all parameters and key defaults. However, it does not describe the return value or result format, which would be useful given there is no output schema. Still, for a creation tool, the input guidance is strong enough to be considered almost 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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameters. It does so thoroughly, explaining formats, defaults, conditional requirements (e.g., target_cpa required with TARGET_CPA), and accepted values for channel_type and bidding_strategy. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare input 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new campaign with a budget.' It also clarifies that it creates both the campaign budget and the campaign in one atomic operation, which distinguishes it from related tools like create_budget and create_performance_max_campaign. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 states that the operation is atomic and creates both budget and campaign together, implying it is the right tool when both need to be created in one step. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the atomic-operation framing provides clear contextual guidance.

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