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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level action without explaining side effects, such as whether scheduling occurs immediately, whether contact assignment overrides existing campaign members, or what happens if startAt is omitted. This is a significant gap for a tool with scheduling semantics.

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, straightforward sentence that is easy to parse and front-loaded with the primary verb. It is concise but lacks necessary detail, making it somewhat under-specified rather than efficiently complete.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It fails to explain the scheduling workflow, return values, or how the tool integrates with related campaign lifecycle tools (e.g., pause_campaign, process_campaigns), leaving significant contextual gaps.

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 description coverage is high (80%), with details for tags, startAt, contactIds, and providerId already provided in the input schema. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, essentially restating the core action without clarifying parameter interactions or scheduling behavior.

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 main action: assign contacts to a campaign and schedule it. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_campaign, add_contacts, and list_schedules by combining assignment and scheduling, though it could be more specific about what 'schedule it' means (e.g., schedule 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer optimal usage from the description alone.

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