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

Annotations declare readOnly=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotent=false, but the description adds valuable specifics: launching queues calls for the orchestrator, TCPA/consent gating still applies at dial time, and an admin role is required. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining side effects and prerequisites.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded ('Create an outbound call campaign...'), then the optional launch consequence and permission requirement are stated efficiently. Every sentence contributes.

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 tool with 7 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, side effects, and prerequisites. The output schema renders return-value explanation unnecessary. It lacks some explicit guidance on when to choose alternatives, but it is otherwise complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters including the nested cadence_config object. The description does not add per-parameter detail beyond the schema, but it does clarify the high-level concepts (campaign = cadence + lead batch) and the purpose of the launch flag. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create an outbound call campaign' and clarifies its composition ('cadence + lead batch') and the optional launch behavior. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like list_campaigns or make_call, so an agent can identify the right tool from the name and description alone.

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 gives useful context about the launching behavior and the admin role requirement, which helps an agent decide when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., choosing make_call for an immediate one-off call instead of a campaign).

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