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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that the campaign is created in DRAFT status and that no one is contacted until launch_campaign is invoked. This is useful side-effect transparency, though it does not mention other behavioral aspects like permissions or persistence.

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 compact: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add the critical non-obvious behavior (not launched, no contacts until launch_campaign). Every sentence adds value.

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 5 parameters, a nested settings object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It leaves the name and settings parameters undocumented, provides no return-value information, and gives no guidance on errors or follow-up actions beyond mentioning launch_campaign.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains the audience id and agent id by name. It does not explain the required 'name' parameter or the 'settings' object, and the statement 'Needs an audience id and an agent id' contrasts with the schema where agentId is optional.

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 the specific verb and resource: 'Create a new campaign in DRAFT status.' It also distinguishes this tool from launch_campaign by explicitly saying the campaign is not launched and nobody is contacted until launch_campaign is called.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: creating a campaign as a draft before launching. It references launch_campaign as the next step and names the required prerequisites (audience id and agent id), though it does not explicitly list exclusion conditions or alternatives such as update_campaign.

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