detach_asset_from_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full disclosure burden. It partially succeeds by stating that the asset itself is untouched, revealing a key non-destructive behavior. However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as reversibility, permissions, or side effects.

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 short sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and the clarifying nuance added immediately. Every word earns its place; there is zero redundancy.

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?

Despite an output schema, the description is too sparse for reliable invocation. It lacks essential parameter details like valid asset_type values and assumes the user knows prerequisites. The absence of annotations makes this gap more severe.

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, but it provides no explanation of campaign_id, asset_type, or asset_id. It does not clarify acceptable asset_type values or how the parameters relate, leaving an agent guessing.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('asset from a campaign'), and adds the critical nuance that the asset itself is untouched. This clearly distinguishes it from deletion tools and pairs naturally with attach_asset_to_campaign.

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 usage context is implied by the name and sibling tool attach_asset_to_campaign, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description does not mention alternatives or conditions for choosing this tool.

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