attach_asset_to_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds one meaningful consequence: attribution reporting keys off this attachment. However, it does not state whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on re-attachment, or any permission/error implications.

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 no filler: the first states the purpose, the second adds actionable timing and reasoning. Both sentences earn their place.

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 simple relationship-creation tool, it provides the core information: the action, the target campaign, the supported asset kinds, and best timing. It omits ID lookup details and side-effect specifics, but an output schema exists and sibling tools like list_campaigns and list_campaign_assets fill some gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It helps clarify asset_type by listing valid categories (page, post, email, form), but still leaves campaign_id and asset_id formats and meanings unexplained, and the asset_type values are not exact enum strings.

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 exactly what it does: attach a page, post, email, or form to a campaign. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like detach_asset_from_campaign and list_campaign_assets.

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?

Provides concrete timing guidance: 'worth doing at the point the draft is created rather than later,' and explains why via attribution reporting. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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