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

Annotations only tell us it is a non-destructive, non-open-world write. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it returns immediately ('Answers at once') while the work proceeds in the background, and progress is observable by re-reading campaign_ideas_list ('launching' then 'launched'). That asynchronous status model is the key thing an agent needs and isn't in the 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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and the async/status behavior following. No filler, though the phrasing 'Each idea shows launching... then launched' is slightly awkward and could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the status lifecycle is covered. Still missing for a mutating batch operation: partial-failure semantics, idempotency/duplicate handling, and any permission prerequisites. These are meaningful gaps for a tool that creates and activates campaigns.

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 0% at the top level, so the description must compensate. It does convey that the parameter is a batch ('each idea') and that ids originate from campaign_ideas_list, but it never mentions the 20-item cap or what happens with invalid/duplicate ids. Partial compensation only.

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 names a concrete compound action: draft each idea, create its campaign, and activate it. That distinguishes it from campaigns_create or campaign_ideas_get, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings. The verb+resource is specific enough that an agent knows what calling it accomplishes.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool consumes ideaIds from campaign_ideas_list, so the agent can infer it's a follow-up to browsing ideas. There is no explicit 'use this when' or any exclusion (e.g., when to use campaigns_create directly instead). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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