Assign contacts to a campaign and schedule it
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | Filter contacts by tag (overrides contactIds) | |
| startAt | No | ISO date (optional) | |
| campaignId | Yes | ||
| contactIds | No | Contact IDs (ignored if tags provided) | |
| providerId | No | Provider ID (optional) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, yet the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., does scheduling overwrite existing schedules?), required permissions, or whether the action is reversible. Minimal transparency.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it is perhaps too terse, lacking context that could be added without significant verbosity.
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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits details on scheduling semantics, required setup, and expected behavior, leaving the agent underinformed.
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 coverage is 80%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema; it does not explain interactions between parameters like tags vs contactIds.
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 action: assign contacts to a campaign and schedule it. It distinguishes from siblings like create_campaign (creation) and add_campaign_step (steps), making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_contacts or create_task. The description does not specify prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action and resource. Campaign lifecycle steps (create, update, delete, schedule, pause, resume) are clearly separate from contact management (add, remove, update tags) and provider/domain operations. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., add_contact, check_domain_deliverability, delete_campaign_step). Mixing of singular/plural nouns (list_campaigns vs list_tags) is intentional and does not break consistency.
34 tools is high but justified for a full-featured email campaign server covering campaigns, contacts, providers, scheduling, deliverability, and task management. A few tools like check_email_spam_score and check_step_spam_score could be merged, but overall the count is reasonable.
The tool surface covers the complete CRM lifecycle: campaign CRUD, step management, contact CRUD with tags, provider setup, scheduling, deliverability checks, and spam analysis. Only minor gaps like per-campaign analytics or import/export exist, but core workflows are fully covered.