Start (activate) an existing campaign: schedules the outreach actions for its contacts and sets status to 'running'. The campaign must already have contacts (add_contacts_to_campaign) and steps. Execution still respects daily limits, allowed hours and anti-detection delays.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_id | Yes | UUID of the campaign to start |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) are complemented by description detailing that it schedules actions, changes status, and respects daily limits and delays. No contradictions.
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: first defines action and effect, second gives prerequisites and constraints. No wasted words, front-loaded.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and constraints fully.
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?
Only one parameter (campaign_id) with full schema description coverage (100%). The description does not add additional parameter details beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'start' (activate) and the resource 'an existing campaign', and specifies the effects: schedules actions and sets status to 'running'. It distinguishes from siblings like stop_campaign and create_campaign.
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 gives explicit prerequisites: campaign must already have contacts (via add_contacts_to_campaign) and steps. It also notes constraints like daily limits and delays. Could explicitly mention not to use if already running, but implied.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among search tools (search_job_postings, search_google_xray, search_linkedin_people, search_web) and messaging tools (send_connection_request, send_linkedin_message, reply_to_chat). However, detailed descriptions clarify the differences.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., add_contacts_to_campaign, list_campaigns). No mixing of conventions.
48 tools is high but justifiable given the broad domain (LinkedIn outreach, CRM, campaigns, job postings, etc.). However, some tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple search tools).
The tool set covers the entire workflow: searching, connecting, messaging, campaign management, CRM operations (fields, stages, tasks, notes), job postings, and posting. No obvious gaps.
