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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining the two-step approval flow, the exclusion of creators without revealed emails, and the fact that the engine handles scheduling, window, and daily cap. The destructiveHint annotation is consistent with the description's statement that the campaign is set active, and the description adds valuable context about the approval token mechanism and guardrails.

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 compact and information-dense, with each sentence serving a purpose: defining the action, explaining the approval flow, and clarifying guardrails. It is well-structured, front-loading the core behavior before the conditional approval logic.

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?

The description covers the essential behavioral aspects: what happens to creators without revealed emails, the approval token flow, and the engine's scheduling behavior. It does not detail the exact response format beyond the approval_required case, but given the absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and handle the main edge case.

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 schema describes campaign_id with format and pattern, and approval_token with a description. The description adds meaning by explaining that approval_token comes from a previous approval_required response and is needed to confirm the launch. With 50% schema coverage, the description compensates for the approval_token parameter's role, though campaign_id semantics are already clear from the schema.

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 tool's function: launching a DRAFT campaign, enrolling only creators with revealed emails, and setting it active. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pause_campaign, resume_campaign, and create_campaign_draft by specifying the draft-to-active transition and the email-reveal filtering behavior.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool (to launch a draft campaign) and provides a critical usage condition: without an approval_token, it returns an approval_required response requiring user confirmation, and the tool must be called again with the token. It also clarifies that dashboard guardrails apply, which helps an agent understand the tool's scope relative to user actions.

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