Draft detaching a brand list

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds the crucial nuance that the call itself is non-mutating: it returns a preview with a plan_id and nothing changes until apply. It also scopes what is destroyed (CampaignCriterion rows) versus what survives (the list and its brands), which an agent cannot infer from the annotation flags alone.

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 first sentence front-loads the action and the preview caveat, and the remaining sentences are short and purposeful. 'Returns a PREVIEW' is slightly restated by the later 'Returns a preview with a plan_id', and the bare API docs link is marginal, but overall it is tight.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema, safety posture by the annotations, and the description fills the remaining gap: the draft/apply workflow, the scope of removal, and the sibling used to inspect current attachments. Nothing needed to invoke this correctly in a two-step mutation flow 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 parameters are already well documented there, including the not_attached batch behavior for campaigns. The description only echoes 'one or more campaigns' and does not add format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Detach a brand list from one or more campaigns') and immediately defines the scope of the change ('Removes the CampaignCriterion rows linking the list to those campaigns; the list itself and its brands are unchanged'). That level of precision lets an agent distinguish it from the attach counterpart and from the generic shared-set detach without reading either schema.

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?

Routes the agent to a concrete alternative for the read side ('get_brand_list_campaigns lists the existing attachments') and explains the required follow-up ('nothing changes until the returned plan_id is applied with confirm_and_apply'). It stops short of naming attach_brand_list_to_campaigns or detach_shared_set_from_campaigns as the inverse/analogue, so selection between near-identical siblings is only implied.

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