Create Campaign

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the write behavior is expected. The description aligns with those annotations and adds the return behavior (created campaign details) but does not disclose additional behavioral context such as idempotency implications, permission requirements, or effects of duplicate names. This is acceptable but not rich.

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, starting with the core purpose and then listing parameters and return value in a compact, scannable format. There is no filler, and every section 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?

For a straightforward create-campaign operation, the description is complete: it covers all required parameters, optional parameters with defaults, and the return value. Since there is no output schema, the Returns section fills that gap. No critical information for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, and the schema already fully documents all four parameters with descriptions, types, and enums. The description repeats this information in an Args block but does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear, specific verb and resource: 'Create a new advertising campaign.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like newsbreak_create_ad_set and newsbreak_create_ad by identifying the exact entity being created, so an agent can select it confidently.

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 clearly implies this tool is for creating a campaign rather than updating one or creating ad sets/ads, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites such as 'the ad account must already exist.' The intent is understandable but relies on inference from the tool name and operation.

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