kadam_adv_set_campaign_rss

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

Annotations only supply idempotentHint, so the description carries real behavioral weight and delivers it: the import is scheduled rather than immediate, success means the feed was saved and not that creatives exist yet, and stopping the import leaves already-imported creatives in place. That success-semantics caveat is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and effect, then the eligibility constraint, then the asynchronous caveat. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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 4-parameter mutation with no output schema and thin annotations, the description covers the main risks: format restriction, async scheduling, and non-destructive stop behavior. Minor gaps remain (it never touches the moderation/removal flags), though the schema does document those.

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 documents the empty-string stop convention, native-campaign requirement, and both boolean flags. The description repeats the empty-link behavior rather than adding new parameter meaning, 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 ('point a native campaign at an RSS feed') and covers both directions of the operation (set vs. stop via empty link). The 'native campaigns only — other formats are rejected' clause scopes it precisely, and no sibling tool touches RSS feeds, so the agent can pick it without ambiguity.

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 when-to-use conditions for both modes: set a feed to import creatives, or send an empty link to stop. It does not name an alternative tool for related work (e.g., manual creative creation), but the usage context itself is unambiguous.

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