create_product_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions creating a campaign but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether this is a write operation (implied by 'Create'), potential side effects, rate limits, or what happens upon execution. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely modifies system state.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by contributing essential information.

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 no annotations and no output schema that creates campaigns (likely a write operation), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format, nor does it provide usage differentiation from siblings. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but other critical context is missing.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format details or examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a multi-post campaign') and the resource ('to promote a specific product or collection across platforms'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'post_to_social_media' or 'schedule_weekly_posts', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 description provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool, stating it's for promoting products/collections across platforms, but offers no explicit when-not-to-use advice or alternatives. It doesn't clarify how this differs from similar tools like 'post_to_social_media' or 'generate_post_ideas', leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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