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

Adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: preview + confirmation_token/approval_url flow, launch-time recipient recheck, fail-closed provider removals, and dry_run advisory semantics. There is no contradiction with the destructiveHint or idempotentHint annotations.

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?

Four dense sentences, each adding meaningful workflow or safety context. The core action is front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundant restating of schema fields.

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 destructive, two-phase launch tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential approval flow, permissions, failure handling, and dry_run behavior. It does not define the confirmed-launch response shape or daily_send_limit, but an agent can still invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With only 20% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining dry_run, confirmation_token, and idempotency_key semantics. It leaves daily_send_limit unexplained, but the parameter name and schema constraints make its intent reasonably inferable.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Launch a draft campaign so real emails begin sending.' It clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like create_campaign and setup_sending.

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 explains the two-phase approval workflow, when dry_run should be used, and the prerequisites ('Requires active sending capacity and campaign:launch'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the usage context is clear.

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