ghl_ad_fb_campaign_upsert

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds endpoint and OAuth scopes but does not disclose behaviors beyond what annotations imply, such as partial vs full update, or what happens when a campaign already exists.

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 mostly concise but includes technical details (endpoint path, version, source) that may not be essential for an agent. While front-loaded with purpose, the extra details slightly reduce clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested body, enums) and lack of output schema, the description does not cover return values, error handling, or how to differentiate create vs update. It relies heavily on the schema but fails to tie concepts together.

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 100%, so all parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 verb 'upsert' and resource 'campaign', with the explanation 'Create or update a Facebook campaign'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete, get, pause, etc., which have different verbs.

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 vs alternatives (e.g., create vs update scenarios, or when to use other campaign tools like duplicate or publish). The description only provides endpoint and OAuth scopes, leaving usage context entirely to the agent.

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