Draft callouts

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

The description mentions 'returns a PREVIEW,' which implies the operation is not immediately destructive, but it does not clarify whether a draft is persisted or has side effects. The annotations indicate readOnlyHint false and destructiveHint false, but the description alone leaves the behavior ambiguous regarding whether any state is modified.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of a single sentence that communicates the core action and a notable output characteristic. It avoids unnecessary elaboration while still conveying key information.

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?

The description lacks important contextual details. It does not explain that this tool is part of a draft-then-apply workflow (given the existence of confirm_and_apply), nor does it specify the expected output structure or how errors are handled. The context of similar tools (e.g., draft_campaign, draft_sitelinks) is not leveraged to clarify the tool's role.

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?

The parameters campaign_id, callouts, and customer_id are listed with types and requiredness, but no descriptions of their meaning or expected format are provided. For instance, it is unclear what format the callouts array strings should take (e.g., plain text, character limits, or any validation rules).

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 (draft) and the resource (campaign callout assets), and explicitly notes that it returns a preview. The verb 'draft' and the preview mention make the tool's primary purpose understandable, though the exact meaning of 'draft' in this context is not fully elaborated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other drafting tools (e.g., draft_sitelinks, draft_campaign) or when to prefer a different approach. It does not mention any prerequisites, nor does it explain the workflow relationship with confirm_and_apply.

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