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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context beyond that: the tool returns the new campaign ID and title, and the created campaign is 'ready for configuration.' This helps the agent understand the immediate post-condition of the call. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is somewhat redundant: 'Create a new campaign in a workspace' and 'Creates a new campaign ready for configuration' essentially repeat the same creation fact. The return-value sentence is useful, but the third sentence could be merged or removed without losing much meaning.

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?

This is a minimal viable definition for a creation tool. It states the return value and the campaign's initial state, and the schema covers workspace defaults. However, it lacks guidance on what 'goal' should contain, when to use this versus the many sibling creation tools, and any required prerequisites for creating a campaign. These are notable gaps, though the core call is still inferable.

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 only 25%, with only workspaceId having a schema description. The description mentions 'workspace' and returns 'title,' but does not explain the meaning or acceptable values of the required 'goal' parameter, nor does it clarify the optional 'description' beyond its obvious name. The low schema coverage places a burden on the description to compensate, and it largely fails to do so.

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 ('Create'), a clear resource ('a new campaign'), and the scope ('in a workspace'). It also distinguishes itself from mutation tools like update_campaign by emphasizing creation, and from create_ad_campaign by focusing on the general campaign object. The return value of ID and title further clarifies its purpose.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as create_ad_campaign, update_campaign, or archive_campaign. There are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or 'use this when...' instructions. The intended usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and basic description.

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