plan_creative_campaign

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=true. The description adds meaningful nuance by stating the side effect is optional and that jobs are draft generation jobs, which conveys uncertainty and safety beyond bare mutation hints. It still doesn't describe the exact output and lifecycle of those jobs.

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 sentences with no filler: the first sentence names the primary action and optional side effect; the second sentence enumerates the workflow scope. The structure is scannable and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's domain.

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?

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and optional job creation, the description doesn't tell the agent what the tool returns—whether it returns a plan document, job IDs, a confirmation, or a list of drafts. The workflow list is helpful, but missing return/umbrella context requiring the agent to search elsewhere.

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 does not add any parameter-level meaning; it repeats the create-job concept that is already in the schema's create_jobs field and does not clarify how variants_per_format, formats, or source_asset_ids play together.

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-resource pair ('Plan... campaign') and enumerates concrete workflows (product photos, UGC/video ads, marketplace cards, etc.), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling create_generation_job, especially since it can also create draft generation jobs, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 workflow list implies when the tool should be used, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or 'use create_generation_job for single jobs' sentence. An agent can infer that this is for campaign-level multi-asset planning, but the boundary with single-job generation tools is left to reasoning.

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