kadam_adv_create_creative

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, leaving the description to carry behavioral details. It discloses that popunder does not support separate creatives, that image/video can come from URL or local paths, and that pauseAfterModeration defaults to true for safety. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or side effects, but the provided details are substantial beyond the minimal annotation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized by campaign type. It is informative without being overly verbose; each sentence adds necessary detail. Small improvements could tighten the language, but overall it is well-structured and efficient.

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 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers required fields per campaign type and special cases. However, it does not mention what the tool returns upon success (e.g., creative ID), which is a gap for an agent. It also assumes the campaign exists but doesn't prep the agent on possible errors. Moderate completeness with a significant omission.

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?

All 13 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining conditional requirements per campaign type (e.g., which fields are required for push vs. banner), which is not fully captured in individual parameter descriptions. This extra context helps agents select the right parameters.

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 states 'Create a new creative for a campaign' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like kadam_adv_create_campaign by specifying 'for a campaign', and from kadam_adv_update_creative by indicating creation. The detailed campaign type requirements further clarify the scope.

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 usage context by listing campaign types and required fields, implying when to use it (e.g., for push, native, banner, video campaigns). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternative tools like update_creative or set_creative_status. The popunder exclusion is useful but limited.

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