save_campaign_network_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the overwrite behavior and a specific error condition (404 with RESOURCE_NOT_FOUND). It does not mention auth or response details, but it covers the most important side-effect.

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 first sentence is repeated verbatim ('Save the networks... Saves the networks...'), which is redundant and unprofessional. The error code is also truncated, adding noise without clarity.

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 covers the key replace behavior and one error case, but with no output schema and no annotations it omits return values, accepted network values, and authentication prerequisites. It is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the 'include every network' instruction, but parameter meanings are mostly delegated to the schema; body semantics are deferred to get_endpoint_definition.

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: 'Save the networks a Sponsored Products campaign targets.' It also adds the critical replace-all behavior, clearly distinguishing this from a partial update or from the sibling 'get_campaign_network_settings' tool.

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 actionable usage guidance: 'Each call replaces the previously saved set; include every network the campaign should target.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough.

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