kadam_adv_create_autorule

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the lone readOnlyHint=false annotation: the 5-rules-per-campaign and 300-per-account caps, that exceeding either is refused, the delete-before-add workaround, and the staff-token exemption. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before a write call.

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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying distinct information (scope, one-per-rule, bidChange requirements, quota rules). Front-loads the core purpose and uses no filler despite a 12-parameter tool.

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?

For a complex mutation tool with no output schema and no destructive/rate annotations, the description covers scope, dependencies, and quotas well. It omits only return-value expectations and whether creation is reversible, which are minor gaps here.

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 coverage is already high (83%), but the description adds cross-parameter dependencies the schema cannot express: bidChange requires slices + bidRate + bidMax together with a spend/clicks condition. It does not restate every field, but that dependency mapping is genuine added value.

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+resource ('Create an autorule on a CPC campaign') and immediately scopes it with the CPC-only constraint. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_autorule, delete_autorule, list_autorules, and set_autorule_status.

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 concrete usage guidance: 'Campaigns usually carry several rules (a strategy); call once per rule' and 'delete a rule before adding one' when limits are exceeded. It does not explicitly route to update_autorule for modifying an existing rule, so it stops short of full when-vs-alternatives coverage.

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