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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only or destructive, but the description adds the critical behavioral guarantee 'DRAFT ONLY, this tool cannot launch, enroll, or send'. This clarifies that no side effects beyond draft creation occur, which is valuable context beyond the annotations. No contradiction with 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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, limitation, and follow-up action. The draft-only constraint is front-loaded immediately after the purpose, and the dashboard link is provided without extra fluff. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 draft-creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, input methods, and the critical limitation. However, it does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g., campaign id or confirmation), which an agent might need. The guard behavior for the confirm parameter is only in the schema, not the description. These are minor gaps given the otherwise clear usage.

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 83%, and the schema itself documents most parameters (offer, confirm, use_saved, creator_ids, followup_gaps_days). The description adds little beyond schema, mostly reinforcing the use_saved/creator_ids relationship and mentioning the default 4-step sequence (not a parameter). The name parameter lacks schema description but is self-explanatory. With high schema coverage, a 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 'create' and the resource 'DRAFT outreach campaign', specifies the input source ('creator ids or your saved list') and the default 4-step sequence. It explicitly distinguishes this from launching by stating 'DRAFT ONLY, this tool cannot launch, enroll, or send', which sets it apart from sibling tools like launch_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 clear when-not guidance: it cannot launch, enroll, or send, and points to the dashboard for review and launch. It implies that launching is done elsewhere, but does not explicitly name the sibling tool launch_campaign. The audience selection guidance (creator ids vs saved list) is also provided, adding practical usage context.

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