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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the result is a DRAFT, no consent is requested, no call is placed, and the tool errors when there is nobody to follow up. It also defines the exact recipient selection rule. Note the mild tension with destructiveHint=true, which reads more severe than a non-calling draft creation, but nothing is actually contradicted.

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?

Two dense sentences with the outcome, the recipient rule, the safety profile, and the failure condition, all front-loaded. Nothing repeats the schema or the title.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is produced, what is not done, and when it fails. Only gap is what the call returns (presumably the new draft campaign), which would help since no output schema exists.

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% and the single parameter already points to list_voice_campaigns for the id, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no format, range, or constraint detail about campaign_id; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb and resource: it creates a new DRAFT campaign carrying over configuration plus only the unreached contacts, and it enumerates exactly which contact states qualify. That distinguishes it in substance from clone_voice_campaign and create_voice_campaign, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

"launch it when ready" makes clear this tool only stages work and that launch_voice_campaign is the next step, and "Refused when there is nobody to follow up" states a precondition. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over clone_voice_campaign or create_voice_campaign, so the agent must infer the alternative.

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