Generate a campaign draft

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the underlying operation, required scopes (campaigns:write, luca:queue_ops), redacted data sensitivity, and the mandatory Idempotency-Key with retry behavior. The safe/non-mutating nature of the generated plan is also stated, which the readOnlyHint=false annotation alone would not convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, followed by operation/auth/idempotency metadata in a compact block. Every line earns its place, though the scope and sensitivity lines read as backend metadata rather than agent-facing 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?

For a complex tool with nested objects and an output schema, the description covers the safety posture, auth requirements, and idempotency contract an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It need not explain return values since an output schema exists; only the composition of the large request body is left entirely to the schema.

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 75% and the schema itself documents workspaceId/workspaceSlug/idempotencyKey. The description adds the useful 'server generates one if omitted' detail for the idempotency key and the workspace-override behavior, but says nothing about the many body fields (goal, mode, prompt, existingGraph, etc.), leaving most parameter meaning to the structured schema.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Generate... campaign plan') and immediately scopes it as 'without creating or publishing it', which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like luca_campaigns_create and luca_campaigns_publish. An agent can tell what this does and what it does not do without opening any schema.

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 'without creating or publishing it' clause implicitly routes the agent: use this to produce a plan, use create/publish for the write steps. However, it never names an alternative sibling explicitly, so the when-to-use guidance is clear context rather than an explicit exclusion.

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