create_campaign_draft

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description reveals the key behavioral contract: the draft is inert, edit-safe, and 'Nothing about the base campaign changes until you call promote_campaign_draft'. It also explains how the draft can be manipulated via other tools using its own campaign ID, adding meaningful operational context.

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?

Two focused sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the follow-up explains the important safety model and related tools. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The description is strong on workflow and safety, and an output schema exists so return-value details are covered. The main gap is the complete absence of parameter semantics in both the schema and description, which prevents a higher score.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate. It never mentions customer_id, campaign_id, or draft_name explicitly. The phrase 'existing campaign' loosely implies campaign_id, but draft_name and customer_id semantics are left entirely to inference from parameter names.

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 clearly states the action and resource: 'Create a draft copy of an existing campaign'. It also distinguishes itself from create_campaign and promote_campaign_draft by framing the result as an 'inert shadow campaign', leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives clear usage context: use this to get a safely editable copy of a live campaign before mutating it, and only call promote_campaign_draft when you actually want changes to go live. It implies the alternative of editing the live campaign directly and explains why the draft route is preferable, though it does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use scenarios.

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