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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent) by spelling out the real-world consequence — outreach is actually sent to real people on a schedule — and a non-obvious behavior: launch rebuilds every step from the saved flow graph, overwriting any `sequence_update` edits made while in draft. That is exactly the kind of gotcha the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the action and consequence, then layers prerequisites, consent, the overwrite warning, and sibling routing. Every sentence carries an operational constraint; nothing is filler despite the length.

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 non-idempotent, destructive, side-effect-heavy launch tool with no output schema, it covers readiness blockers, required human confirmation, destructive overwrite semantics, and correct sibling picks. An agent has everything needed to call it safely and 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%, so `campaignId` and `skipPreflight` are already documented in the schema. The description implies a preflight/readiness concept ('clear every blocker') but never ties it explicitly to the `skipPreflight` flag, so it adds only marginal value beyond the structured fields. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a campaign') and immediately describes the concrete effect: real invitations, messages and emails go out from the connected LinkedIn account and mailboxes. It explicitly separates itself from siblings ('the only tool that starts a campaign'; pausing/resuming is `campaign_set_status`).

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 explicit preconditions (run `campaign_get` first, clear every blocker: saved flow, lead source, sending account, finished CSV import) and an explicit consent requirement (show the sequence and audience, get a real yes, not an assumed one). It also names the correct alternative for editing draft copy (`flow_set`) and for lifecycle changes (`campaign_set_status`).

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