draft_image_assets

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds little beyond the fact that it 'drafts' image assets, without explaining behavioral implications such as whether drafting creates a temporary version or triggers any side effects. The agent is left guessing about the tool's behavior.

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, succinct sentence. It is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it could be structured to include more detailed guidance without becoming overly verbose.

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 has 3 parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description is too brief. It fails to explain what 'drafting' means, whether a campaign must already exist, or any constraints on the images. The absence of contextual completeness forces the agent to guess or seek additional information.

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 should compensate. It mentions 'local...files' which hints at image_paths, but does not explain campaign_id or customer_id. Without parameter descriptions, the agent cannot confidently use the tool correctly.

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), resource (campaign image assets), and source (local PNG, JPEG, or GIF files). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like draft_ad_group or draft_campaign, making it easy for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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 alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context for usage. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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