create_spa_campaign

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool creates a campaign and supports two budget types, but it does not explain that this is a mutating operation requiring authentication (x_token, x_retailer_id), how the body is used, or what the return value is. Important behavioral traits like prerequisites and side effects are omitted.

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 short and front-loaded, but the first two sentences are redundant ('Create a new...' and 'Creates a new...' say the same thing). The content could be condensed into two sentences without losing meaning. The third sentence adds valuable detail, but the redundancy prevents a higher score.

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 create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to construct the body (instead referencing get_endpoint_definition), does not mention that x_token and x_retailer_id are required for the call despite the schema, and gives no indication of the expected response. While it covers budget types, several critical contextual aspects are missing.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by mentioning budget settings, bidding strategy, and campaign type, and specifically identifying AVERAGE_DAILY_BUDGET and LIFETIME_BUDGET as supported types. This enriches understanding of the opaque 'body' parameter, though it does not map every parameter explicitly.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new Sponsored Products Advertising (SPA) campaign.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_spa_campaign and list_spa_campaigns by explicitly indicating a create operation. It also adds details about budget settings and campaign type, making the purpose clear.

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 implies the tool is for creating new SPA campaigns, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like update_spa_campaign. It mentions supported budget types, but no exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, leaving the usage context implicit rather than explicit.

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