direct_create_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It declares 'WRITE' and 'allow_write=true', indicating a mutating operation and a safety flag. It also reveals channel-specific behavior (search has HP and Network OFF, rsya uses Network max-clicks and Search OFF), which is useful context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't discuss auth, rate limits, or side effects beyond creation.

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 compact and highly information-dense. It front-loads the core action ('WRITE: campaigns.add from zero') and then quickly covers channels, optional parameters, and follow-up steps with efficient shorthand. There is no redundancy; every element serves a purpose, though some shorthand like 'HP' may require domain knowledge.

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 tool with 14 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, channel differences, key optional settings, and the immediate next steps. It omits some parameters (start_date, dry_run) and doesn't state return values, but the critical workflow is clearly outlined, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 only 36% (5 of 14 params have descriptions). The description compensates partially by listing optional parameters (daily_rub, weekly_rub, bid_ceiling_rub, negatives, counter_id, utm TrackingParams, timezone) but doesn't explain their semantics further. Some params like dry_run, project, and pin_to_project are left entirely to the schema or omitted, so the description adds moderate value but doesn't fully bridge the gap.

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 'WRITE: campaigns.add from zero', specifying the exact operation (creating a campaign) and the resource (campaigns.add). It also distinguishes between two channel types (search and rsya) and lists key parameters. This clearly separates it from sibling tools that handle different aspects of campaign management.

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 says 'After add use add_adgroups/keywords/ads or direct_launch_pack', which provides clear follow-up actions and implicitly indicates this tool is the first step in campaign creation. It doesn't mention when to use an alternative like direct_launch_pack instead, but the workflow is clearly implied.

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