Draft image assets

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which already convey that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it drafts from local files, but does not disclose deeper side effects like whether existing drafts are replaced or if any confirmation is required. With annotations present, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 a single, focused sentence that directly states the purpose and the accepted input file types. It is concise and well-structured with no redundant words.

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 is minimal and leaves out critical context. It does not mention what happens after drafting (e.g., whether assets are automatically applied or need approval), any output format, or the significance of the customer_id. Given that this is a creation-like operation with potential side effects, the lack of such details makes it incomplete.

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%. The description does not explain any of the three parameters (campaign_id, customer_id, image_paths). The tool description offers no clues about what these parameters mean or how they should be supplied, leaving the agent completely in the dark.

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 verb 'Draft' and the resource 'campaign image assets', and further specifies the accepted file types (PNG, JPEG, GIF). This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from other drafting tools for campaigns, ad groups, etc.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does; there is no mention of when not to use it or how it compares to other drafting tools (e.g., draft_campaign).

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