Create a draft multi-step email sequence for an existing campaign. Returns the sequence ready to activate in xmagnet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| num_steps | No | Number of sequence steps to generate | |
| campaign_id | Yes | Source campaign ID | |
| campaign_name | No | ||
| campaign_type | No | myconvo |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate this is a non-destructive mutation. The description adds value by specifying it creates a draft (not an activated sequence) and returns the sequence ready for activation, which is behavioral context beyond the 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no fluff. Every word earns its place.
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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives a high-level understanding of what it does and returns, but it omits details about parameters (campaign_name, campaign_type) and does not describe the return structure beyond 'ready to activate.' It is adequate but has gaps.
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 50% (campaign_id and num_steps have descriptions; campaign_name and campaign_type do not). The description does not explain campaign_name or campaign_type, nor does it clarify how num_steps relates to 'multi-step' beyond that. It fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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 action ('Create a draft multi-step email sequence') and the resource ('for an existing campaign'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_campaign (which creates the campaign itself) and generate_campaign_content (which generates content). The phrase 'ready to activate' clarifies the output state.
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?
It provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you have an existing campaign and need a multi-step sequence draft. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the prerequisite of an existing campaign is implicit and helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools occupy nearly identical roles (create_contact/add_contacts/save_contacts_to_crm/upload_contacts; add_companies/create_company; search_contacts/search_crm_contacts/find_contacts_at_companies), and the names don't clearly reveal whether they operate on saved or prospected data. Although the descriptions clarify some boundaries, an agent would frequently need to read many descriptions carefully to avoid mis-selection.
Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern such as list_campaigns, create_deal, and update_contact. Minor deviations like company_intelligence, get_icp, load_more_contacts, and the inconsistent use of add_/create_/upload_/save_ for similar creation actions keep it from being fully consistent.
51 tools is far beyond the well-scoped range and exceeds the 50+ extreme threshold. Even for a broad CRM/prospecting/marketing platform, exposing this many tools at once makes agent selection costly and unwieldy.
Contact and company creation/read/update are covered, but delete is absent across the board, and campaigns can be drafted, listed, and measured but not edited, activated, paused, or deleted. Deals, forms, and landing pages also lack update/delete lifecycle actions, creating meaningful dead ends for common CRM workflows.
