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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses important behavior: save stores a draft without publishing, delete removes only unpublished drafts and returns an undo ID, list is capped at 100 drafts, validation is required before publication, and MCP calls consume no Adrails credits. These details substantially help an agent understand side effects and recovery options.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then operation semantics, then validation sequencing, then cost behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 multi-operation mutation tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it covers the core operations, key return values for save and delete, limits, and publication gating. Minor gaps remain around the list response shape and validate return value, but the agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 already high at 75%, and the description adds operation-level meaning by explaining what each operation does, that deletion accepts up to 100 source campaign IDs, and that save returns ID, state, and version. It does not explain every parameter, but it meaningfully supplements the schema.

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The description states a specific resource (unpublished workspace campaign drafts) and enumerates the supported operations: list, save, validate, and delete. It also distinguishes this tool from campaigns_publish_draft by noting that saving never publishes and validation is a prerequisite for publication.

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?

Usage is clearly implied for each operation: list drafts, save/update a draft without publishing, validate before using campaigns_publish_draft, and delete unpublished drafts by source campaign ID. It does not comprehensively compare against other campaign-management siblings, but it provides strong operation-level guidance and names the key publication alternative.

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