create_shopping_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the campaign is created paused, builds a specific structure (budget, campaign, ad group, empty product ad, exhaustive listing group tree), and the two-phase preview/confirm behavior. It also includes operational details like the mandatory excluded catch-all and the allowlisted customer_id requirement.

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 well-structured: a concise summary followed by a clear Args list. Every sentence provides meaningful information, from the PAUSED state to the exhaustive listing group tree, with no wasted words. It is appropriately detailed for a complex tool.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 params, two-phase flow, detailed construction logic), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, how to use it, all parameter details, and the preview/confirm behavior, while the output schema presumably explains the return value.

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 0%, but the description provides thorough explanations for all 12 parameters, adding meaning beyond the schema. Examples include clarifying feed_label replaces sales_country, dimension allowed values, campaign_priority semantics, and language/geo ID formats. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Create a Standard Shopping campaign, PAUSED' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling create_performance_max_campaign. It further details the two-phase creation, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains the two-phase usage: omit confirm_token for a preview, then call again with the token to create. It also notes the prerequisite that customer_id must be allowlisted. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives like PMax, though the name and context imply it.

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