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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with them ('opens nothing by itself'). It adds useful context about the return being step-by-step screens/buttons/fields, but does not cover error cases or what happens if the campaign is already in the target state.

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 core purpose and handoff are front-loaded and clear, but the trailing sentence about Mautic's official REST API and the 'checked 23 Oct 2026' date is tangential to invoking this tool and dilutes focus.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so ('how to do it in Mautic step by step (screens, buttons, fields)'). For a zero-parameter guidance tool this is largely complete, missing only edge-case behavior.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource ('Activate or pause campaign') scoped to the user's own Mautic account, and clarifies it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. It is distinguishable from the other mautic_* siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

Explicitly says it 'opens nothing by itself' and directs the agent to follow up with cotlet_browser_* tools in the Mautic Cloud Browser, which is a clear usage path. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or a named alternative among the mautic_* siblings.

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