draft_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that campaigns are ALWAYS created Paused, which is a critical safety behavior. It also adds reliability information with live-verification dates and warnings about non-default language values. This goes beyond typical descriptions, though it does not cover return values or failure modes.

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 concise, uses clear bullet-like formatting, and front-loads the most important fact (paused state). The live-verification note is additional but not verbose. It earns its place and is easy to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the agent is left unaware of what the tool returns (e.g., campaign ID) and cannot know how to use the result for subsequent steps. It also does not address when to choose this over create_pmax_campaign. The verification notes add trust but the operational context is incomplete for a tool that creates a draft entity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that campaign_type accepts 'Search' or 'PerformanceMax' and that time_zone/language have US-centric defaults that should be overridden for other markets. However, it does not add meaning for 'name' or 'daily_budget' beyond what the schema's titles imply, leaving partial coverage.

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 ('Draft') with resource 'campaign' and immediately clarifies the two supported campaign types (Search, PerformanceMax). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling create_pmax_campaign, which might also create a campaign of that type, so it is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_pmax_campaign or update_campaign. It mentions defaults and overrides for markets but does not state scenarios favoring this tool over siblings. The agent must infer usage context.

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