create_field_campaign_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'create', which is generic and matches the tool name; it does not mention whether the operation is destructive, whether it overwrites existing files, what permissions are required, or what success/error responses look like. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

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?

The description is extremely concise (a single sentence) with no wasted words. However, it is so terse that it omits essential details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It is neither bloated nor well-organized; it simply lacks substance.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should at least clarify what 'empty roster' means, what output_path should point to, and any prerequisites or side effects. The description only gives a vague workflow hint ('before holdout preregistration') and leaves the main operational details undocumented, making it insufficient for a correct 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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions (coverage 0%) and the tool description does not mention the 'output_path' parameter at all. Even though the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to elaborate on expected format, path conventions, or default behavior. The description offers zero assistance for correct parameter usage.

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 ('Create') and a specific resource ('empty 12-20 app owned/partner roster'), and gives a context cue ('before holdout preregistration'). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling template creators like create_benchmark_template or create_guardian_manifest_template. The purpose is distinguishable by the unique resource name.

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 'used before holdout preregistration' implies a temporal context but does not give explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention any alternative tools or conditions for choosing this tool over a sibling. There is no guidance on preconditions or expected workflow.

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