create_campaign

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds critical behavioral details: the operation is atomic, the campaign is always created PAUSED, it cannot spend until a human enables it in the Google Ads UI, and confirmation is required first. This gives the agent a strong sense of the real-world side effects and safety posture of the 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?

The description is three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives the prerequisite, the paused behavior, and the user-confirmation requirement. Every sentence adds necessary operational guidance.

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 high-stakes mutate call, the description covers the essential workflow: preview first, confirm with the user, then create atomically. It also discloses the most important consequence—the campaign starts paused and cannot spend until a human enables it—and because an output schema exists, return details are not needed in the description.

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?

The top-level schema provides no description for the two parameters, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that spec must be the exact spec from a successful preview_campaign and that confirm_token comes from that same preview, which is essential semantics the schema alone does not convey.

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: 'Create the campaign for real', and clarifies it is 'a single atomic mutate'. It also distinguishes the tool from preview_campaign by requiring a successful preview's spec and confirm_token, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly specifies the precondition: the tool requires 'the exact spec and confirm_token from a successful preview_campaign', and instructs the agent to confirm with the user before calling. It does not explicitly name alternatives like create_campaign_draft or when not to use them, but the prerequisite and user-confirmation guidance provide a solid usage context.

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