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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds useful domain context, especially that 'the order field controls phase sequencing,' but it does not disclose potential side effects, failure modes, or whether creation requires an existing campaign beyond supplying an ID.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains phase organization and the key order-field behavior, and ends with a practical lookup tip. Every sentence earns its place.

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 provides enough orientation for a straightforward create operation: what a phase is, that order matters, and how to obtain campaign IDs. It lacks guidance on what happens after creation, how objectives map to the phase structure, or how ordering interacts with existing phases, though the schema and mutation annotations cover some of this burden.

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 only 17%, so the description needs to compensate. It explains the purpose of the order field and points to campaignstack_list_campaigns for campaignId. However, it does not add meaning for objectives, name, or description beyond their obvious names, and phaseType is only covered by 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 states a specific action and resource: 'Create a new campaign phase (roadmap milestone).' It also clarifies that phases organize a campaign into sequential steps with objectives. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like update_phase or list_phases, but the 'create' and 'new' language makes the intent clear.

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 implies when to use the tool—when creating a new phase for a campaign—and provides one useful related instruction: use campaignstack_list_campaigns to find campaign IDs. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives such as update_phase or create_campaign.

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