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

Discloses destructive behavior (unsent emails in the source campaign are deleted) and conditional behavior (emails enqueued only if the target campaign is running). This meaningfully exceeds the annotations, which only declare destructiveHint=false.

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 and its consequences. Efficient, though the second sentence is somewhat redundant with the first.

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?

A mutation tool with no output schema; the description covers prerequisites (source vs. target campaigns), side effects (deletion, enqueueing), and the conditional running-state requirement. An agent has enough to call it 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 100% and all three parameters are documented in the schema; the description adds the semantic distinction that sourceCampaignId is the current campaign and targetCampaignId the destination, but does not add syntax or format detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb+resource (moves a lead between campaigns) and describes the exact side effects. No sibling tool performs this re-routing action, so it is clearly distinguishable.

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?

Gives a clear usage scenario ('re-route a lead into a better-fitting campaign'). Does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is narrow enough that this is nearly unambiguous.

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