Draft a brand list

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

Annotations mark this as a non-read, non-destructive, open-world mutation; the description crucially discloses the preview-first contract — a plan_id is returned and nothing changes until confirm_and_apply is called. That is non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations. It does not cover permission/auth requirements or duplicate/dedup effects in the prose, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the outcome and the PREVIEW warning, then the mechanics, then the plan/apply contract. The opening 'Draft a brand list and optionally attach it to campaigns' partly restates the title, a small redundancy, but overall it is tight and well-ordered.

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?

With annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema for the preview, the definition supplies enough to call the tool correctly, including the two-step draft/confirm workflow. Nothing essential is missing, though it could have named the sibling tools it hands off to (attach_brand_list_to_campaigns) more explicitly.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter including the negative default semantics and the MID requirement for brand_ids. The description adds only high-level framing ('fills it with brands', 'optionally attach') and no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 (draft a brand list) with scope (optionally attach to campaigns) and even the underlying object (a SharedSet of type BRANDS). It is clear and specific, though it never explicitly names a sibling in the main text, so differentiation from propose_negative_keyword_list / draft_prepare_brand_exclusions is left to inference.

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?

Gives clear context: when campaign_ids is supplied the set is attached, otherwise it is created unused and attach_brand_list_to_campaigns is used later. It also states the plan must be applied with confirm_and_apply. No explicit when-not or named-alternative comparison, so it stops short of a 5.

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