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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuine context beyond them: configuration is validated first, and emails begin sending according to the campaign schedule — a concrete, hard-to-undo side effect. It still omits what happens if the campaign is already active and whether the launch is synchronous.

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 action, with no filler. Each clause contributes either the tool's scope or a behavioral fact the agent needs.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the key actions and the email-sending consequence. It stops short of covering repeat invocation or active-campaign behavior, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining it is the numeric campaign ID obtained from list_campaigns. The description adds no further meaning about the ID, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (launch/resume) and resource (campaign), and adds the useful dual behavior of starting a new campaign or resuming a paused one. It is clear against siblings like pause_campaign or create_campaign, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 implies when to use it (new or paused campaigns) but gives no explicit preconditions, such as whether the campaign needs an attached sequence or sender beforehand, nor does it point to a sibling for configuration-first workflows. Usage is inferable but not instructed.

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