ads_yandex_direct_create_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the resulting object state (paused, search and network serving off, no ads, no budget) and that activation requires separate steps. It omits auth/prerequisite requirements, whether creation is reversible, and idempotency/replay behavior, which matter for a write tool.

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, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (paused, unconfigured) is front-loaded before the caveat. Nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and thin schema coverage, the description covers resulting state but not what is returned (campaign ID needed for follow-up configuration) or how idempotency_key behaves on retry. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent will hit on first call.

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 only 17% — only 'confirm' is documented in the schema. The description never mentions name, start_date, time_zone, client_info, or the idempotency_key (including that repeats with the same key are deduplicated). It adds essentially no semantics beyond stating that no budget or ads are configured.

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 and tightly scoped resource: 'Create one paused Yandex Direct text campaign.' The platform, campaign type, and single-object scope distinguish it from generic siblings like ads_campaign_create and ads_yandex_direct_write without needing to open a 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 phrase 'through the guarded provider path' implies this is the preferred route over a raw write, and the paused-by-default note implies when you'd pick it. But no sibling is named and no explicit when-not condition (e.g., versus ads_yandex_direct_write or ads_campaign_create) is given, so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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