kadam_adv_move_campaigns

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

The description goes beyond the idempotentHint annotation by disclosing atomicity semantics: validation errors reject the whole request and success means every campaign was moved. This is exactly the kind of all-or-nothing behavior an agent needs before issuing a batch mutation, and it is consistent with idempotentHint=true.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The middle sentence largely duplicates the schema's parameter descriptions, which is mild redundancy given 100% schema coverage, but overall the structure is tight.

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 simple two-parameter batch mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the inputs, and the atomicity guarantee. Missing only minor context such as required permissions or behavior when a target group is invalid, which is not fatal at this complexity.

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 both parameters (ids, folderId) are already documented in the schema. The description restates 'comma-separated campaign IDs' and 'target campaign group ID', adding no format, limit, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the 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+resource pair ('Move ... campaigns to a campaign group'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling kadam_adv_move_creatives, whose resource differs. It is clear and specific, but does not explicitly disambiguate from other campaign-related siblings such as update_campaign or set_campaign_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?

The instruction to pass comma-separated IDs implies the batch use case, so an agent can infer when this tool is the right choice over single-campaign operations. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives (e.g., a hypothetical single-campaign move) are given.

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