create_campaign_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals an important default behavior (preview rather than immediate creation), but omits side effects, authentication needs, how to actually execute, idempotency, or reversibility. This is insufficient for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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 two short sentences with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. The second sentence adds meaningful behavioral information. However, the brevity mostly reflects under-specification rather than efficient completeness of 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?

An agent cannot determine how to move from preview to actual creation, what a valid campaign group body should contain, or whether authentication is required. With no annotations and zero parameter documentation, the description is materially incomplete for invoking the tool correctly.

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%, so the description needed to compensate for the three parameters. It does not explain `path`, `execute`, or `body_json`; 'Preview by default' only loosely maps to the `execute=false` default. No example values, body structure hints, or parameter relationships are provided.

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 ('Create') and resource ('campaign group'), making the core purpose clear and differentiating it from siblings like create_campaign or list_campaign_groups by name. The 'Preview by default' note adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus create_campaign, update_campaign, or list_campaign_groups. 'Preview by default' implies a dry-run mode but does not explain when execution should occur or what prerequisites exist. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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