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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (mutation known) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds value by stating the mutation is reversible (campaigns can be edited/deleted), which goes beyond annotations. It also specifies authentication requirement and output (returns campaign id). No contradictions with annotations.

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 primary action and ownership. Every word adds value: return value, reversibility, auth. No fluff or repetition. Highly efficient.

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 creation tool with 5 simple parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: auth, ownership, reversibility, and return value. The missing mention of default status is minor since schema covers it. Output schema exists, so return value detail is sufficient. Slightly more detail on side effects would improve completeness.

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%, with all parameters described. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format constraints or default values. For example, it doesn't mention that status defaults to 'draft' (though implicit in schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema carries the burden.

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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and resource 'outreach campaign', specifies ownership by authenticated user, return value (campaign id), and reversibility. It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'create_marketing_campaign' due to the 'outreach' qualifier.

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 implies when to use (to create an outreach campaign) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use. No guidance on choosing between similar creation tools like 'create_marketing_campaign' or 'create_outreach_pitch'. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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