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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructive, non-idempotent, open world), and the description adds meaningful context on top: required scopes (calls:write plus admin role), the launch precondition of an assigned agent, the partial nature of pause ('already running calls may finish'), and the warning that a queued result is not delivery proof. This is exactly the extra behavioral detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action/scope, then preconditions, then side effects. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations and every clause carries operational information.

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?

With an output schema present, return details are correctly omitted. For a destructive, open-world mutation tool the description supplies auth requirements, preconditions, side-effect timing, and a caveat about the meaning of a queued result – enough for correct invocation.

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 50%: agent_id and business_id carry descriptions, while action and campaign_id do not. The description compensates for the undocumented enum by explaining what each action value does (launch queues pending calls; pause halts pending work), and reinforces the agent_id precondition. It adds only an implied naming for business_id.

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 precise verb pair and resource: 'Launch or resume an existing outbound call campaign, or pause it.' It also explicitly excludes a sibling domain ('This is not an email campaign tool'), letting an agent separate it from email_campaign and create_campaign without opening a schema.

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 clear context for the two actions: launch requires an agent assigned to the business and queues pending calls; pause stops pending work. It rules out the email campaign sibling, but does not explicitly route the agent to create_campaign/list_campaigns for the adjacent cases (creating vs. inspecting a campaign).

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