detach_shared_set_from_campaigns

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral details: the operation is non-destructive to the shared set itself, only removes attachments, and returns a preview that requires confirmation. This fully informs the agent about the tool's behavior and side effects.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, followed by behavior, usage guidance, and parameter definitions. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. It uses clear language and efficient formatting.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema (returning a preview), the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, how to use it, the preview and confirmation workflow, and the source of parameter values. It is complete for the agent to understand and use the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clearly defines shared_set_id (numeric ID from get_negative_keyword_lists) and campaign_ids (list of numeric campaign IDs). However, the optional customer_id parameter is not mentioned, which is a minor gap. Overall, it adds substantial meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the action: 'Detach a shared set from one or more campaigns'. It specifies the resource (shared set) and the scope (from campaigns), and distinguishes it from the sibling `attach_shared_set_to_campaigns`. It also clarifies that the shared set remains unchanged, adding precision.

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 explains when to use the tool (to remove CampaignSharedSet linkages) and provides explicit pre-requisites: 'Use get_negative_keyword_list_campaigns to inspect existing attachments before detaching.' It also notes that the operation returns a preview and requires a follow-up call to confirm_and_apply, giving clear usage context.

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