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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it never says what starting does, whether it is reversible, whether it triggers outbound activity or billing, or what happens if the campaign is already running. The note about matching website/API/CLI authorization hints at auth requirements but is too vague to be actionable.

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 text is short and front-loaded, but "SAGOT" is unexplained internal jargon and the second sentence spends its budget on an authorization claim rather than on the operation itself. It is concise without being informative.

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?

This is a mutating campaign lifecycle tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, so the description should carry far more weight than it does. It omits preconditions, side effects, idempotency, and the relationship to pause/resume/cancel, leaving the definition materially incomplete.

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 0% for two required UUID parameters (id and workspaceId), and the description adds nothing about their meaning, source, or format. An agent must infer that id is the campaign identifier and workspaceId scopes it, with no confirmation from either the description or the schema.

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?

"SAGOT campaigns.start" essentially restates the tool name without explaining what starting a campaign actually does (launch dialing, transition state, etc.). It is a tautology of the identifier rather than a specific verb+resource description, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like campaigns_resume, campaigns_pause, or campaigns_preview.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus campaigns_resume, campaigns_pause, campaigns_preview, or campaigns_cancel. The only context given is that authorization/validation matches the website, API and CLI, which does not tell an agent which situation selects this tool.

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