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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description's added prerequisite about the connected AI provider is genuine value beyond the structured data. It also clarifies the result lands as a draft rather than a launched campaign, which is useful behavioral context. It does not mention that AI drafting is slow/long-running or that repeated non-idempotent calls create duplicate campaigns, which keeps it from a 5.

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 with zero waste: the core action and its output come first, the prerequisite second, and the sibling routing last. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 9-param, 8-required mutation with no output schema, the description is nearly complete — action, prerequisite, and alternative are all present. The remaining gap is the return value: it never says whether the call yields a campaign ID, the generated sequence, or just a success flag, which matters for chaining into campaign_launch or flow_get.

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% and every param carries an example-bearing description, so the schema does the heavy lifting and 3 is the baseline. The description adds only the framing that the inputs constitute a "brief"; it says nothing about stepCount bounds (1-10) or how the fields interact with the generated sequence.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("ask the platform's own AI to draft a whole campaign — copy and multi-step sequence") and states the outcome ("create it as a draft"). Clearly distinguishes from the manual-authoring sibling flow_set and from campaign_create, so an agent can route 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 an explicit selection rule ("Use this when the user wants the platform to write the sequence for them") plus the inverse case with the named alternative ("to author one yourself, use flow_set"). It also states a hard prerequisite (AI provider connected under Settings - Integrations) that would otherwise cause a silent runtime failure.

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