Create Campaign

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a non-destructive write operation. The description adds some context (required fields, budget levels) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether the campaign ID is returned, potential approval workflows, or side effects on related entities. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by essential parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 core requirements, special category handling, and budget placement, which is solid for a 7-parameter tool with full schema coverage. However, there is no mention of what the tool returns (e.g., campaign ID) or any post-creation behavior, and since there is no output schema, a brief note would improve completeness. Still, it is adequately complete for the given complexity.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema by clarifying how to use special_ad_categories ('Set special_ad_categories to [] if none apply') and explaining CBO vs ad set budget allocation, which helps understand the budget parameters in context.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new campaign.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_adset and create_ad. It also mentions key requirements (name, objective, status) and nuances like CBO vs ad set budget, which solidifies the tool's purpose.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (creating a campaign) and includes practical guidance like setting special_ad_categories to [] when none apply and budget placement options. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative sibling tools (e.g., create_adset) or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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