kadam_adv_move_creatives

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses that moved creatives lose creative-level geo bids, are paused, and return to moderation, and that the operation is atomic ('nothing moves' on failure). It stops short of saying whether the operation is revertible or what the caller gets back afterward, but the destructive effects are unusually well surfaced.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its constraints, then the side effects, then the failure semantics, then the alternative. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description could say what a caller receives after a successful move (e.g. job id or moderation state), which is the one gap. Otherwise it covers prerequisites, destructive effects, and atomicity, which is sufficient for a three-parameter mutation tool.

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%, and the schema already states the domain constraint on 'url' and the format/pricing constraint on 'campaignId'. The description restates those constraints but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Move creatives to another campaign') and constrains scope to the same ad format and pricing model. It also explicitly names the sibling operation that covers the alternative intent ('To keep the originals in place, copy instead'), so an agent can distinguish it from kadam_adv_copy_creatives without opening either schema.

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?

It gives explicit selection criteria — same ad format, same pricing model — and names the alternative tool (copy) with the condition that selects it. The when-not condition is stated rather than implied.

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