preview_launch_campaignShow what would happen if you launch the campaign: recipient count, channels, daily limit. NOTHING IS SENT. ALWAYS call this first and surface the result to the user (recipient count, channels) before calling launch_campaign. This is required by Vendo AI policy and protects the user from a launch they did not intend.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'NOTHING IS SENT' and explains the safeguard intent, making the non-destructive nature unmistakable.
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?
Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the preview's purpose and outputs, followed by a bold safety warning. Every sentence adds actionable value with no filler.
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?
Given only one parameter and no output schema, the description still covers what the tool returns (recipient count, channels, daily limit), what it does not do (send), and the expected call sequence. Nothing essential is missing for correct use.
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?
The schema provides only a bare string `id` with 0% description coverage, so the description needed to explain it. It doesn't explicitly say 'the campaign id'; however, the tool name, title, and 'launch the campaign' wording make the referent inferable, so a minimally-capable agent can proceed.
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 names a specific verb ('Show what would happen'), a concrete resource (the campaign launch), and the exact outputs (recipient count, channels, daily limit). It clearly differentiates itself from the destructive launch_campaign sibling by emphasizing this is a 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?
Explicit workflow guidance: ALWAYS call this first, surface the result to the user, then call launch_campaign. It also states the policy requirement, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Despite consistently detailed descriptions, several tool pairs have unclear boundaries: `get_subscription_limits` and `get_agent_plan_limits` describe essentially the same agent-slot check, `crm_get_conversation` and `crm_communication_thread` both claim to return the full message thread, and `get_credit_usage_by_agent` vs `get_credit_usage_for_agent` differ only by preposition. At 149 tools, an agent will regularly misselect between these near-duplicates.
The dominant pattern is verb_noun with domain prefixes (`crm_*`, `sdr_*`) and a consistent `preview_*` family that maps cleanly to destructive/expensive actions. Deviations are minor but real: CRM deletes use the inverted `delete_crm_*` form while other CRM ops use `crm_*`, and credit-usage tools mix `by_agent`/`for_agent` prepositions.
149 tools is nearly three times the 50+ threshold the rubric treats as extreme, even though the platform genuinely spans agents, campaigns, audiences, CRM, SDR, billing, and connections. Many could be consolidated without losing capability — e.g. the 11 balance/credit-usage tools, the two LinkedIn-account listers, and the 15+ preview variants.
The surface is remarkably complete: full CRUD/lifecycle coverage for agents, campaigns, audiences, CRM leads/stages, and SDR searches, plus billing, analytics, and connection management. Destructive or costly operations all have preview/approval counterparts, so there are no dead ends. If anything the risk is over-coverage rather than gaps.