direct_launch_pack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a write operation, includes moderation steps, optional age ban, resume behavior, and the use of allow_write flag to gate mutations. It also clarifies that 'content' is used in utm_content. While it doesn't detail error handling or idempotency, it offers substantial transparency for a complex orchestration 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 dense and compact, using arrow notation to convey flow and inline schema-like syntax for groups. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, terms like 'pin projects.json' are cryptic and could be clearer, so it loses a point for slightly sacrificing clarity for brevity.

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 complex 22-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the overall workflow and key parameters but omits return value, prerequisites (e.g., does project need to already exist?), and potential failure modes. It explains the happy path well but lacks the completeness needed for an agent to fully anticipate behavior in edge cases.

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 low at 23%, but the description explains the groups structure (name, phrases, ads, image_path), ads limits (max 3), and the semantics of 'content' as utm_content. It also clarifies channel values and the match mode logic ('phrase+"[exact]"'). This adds meaningful context beyond the sparse schema descriptions, though many parameters like sitelinks and budgets remain undocumented in prose.

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 FULL LAUNCH from zero in one call' and enumerates the exact sequence of operations (create campaign, excluded sites, adgroups, keywords, ads, moderation, optional bans/resume). This is highly specific and distinguishes the tool from the many granular sibling tools like direct_create_campaign, direct_add_adgroups, and direct_add_ads.

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 use this tool for a complete end-to-end campaign setup from scratch, as opposed to using the individual sibling tools. It also advises 'Prefer dry_run first' and explains that 'allow_write=true' is required for actual mutation, providing practical usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives for partial updates.

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