Create Campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds two useful behavioral facts: the micros unit for the budget field and the immutability of bidding_type after creation. However, it does not disclose other side-effect/behavioral details such as return value, sync/asynchronous behavior, idempotency retry semantics, or permission requirements.

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?

Two concise sentences, with the core operation first and the two most important caveats immediately following. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 rich schema covers all parameters, defaults, required fields, and the paused-status recommendation, which compensates for much of the missing context. Still, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves return-value format and post-creation behavior unspecified, and doesn't mention error cases or prerequisites. Adequate for a straightforward create call, but not fully 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 a concrete example for lifetime_spend_limit_micros (25000000 = $25.00) and warns that bidding_type is immutable after creation, which is not obvious from the schema's enum alone. This exceeds the baseline without re-documenting every field.

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?

States 'Create an ad campaign' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing creation from sibling get/update/list/set/clone campaign tools. The title reinforces the operation, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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 creation context is implied by the verb 'Create' and the sibling list contains update/set_state/clone alternatives, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or conditions favoring this tool over clone_campaign_structure or update_campaign. It relies entirely on the tool name.

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