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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds crucial context they do not carry: this contacts real people, and it requires a sequence with an email step plus at least one assigned sender profile. It stops short of stating reversibility (deactivate_campaign) or what a failed activation returns, so not a 5.

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 tight sentences: effect first, safety workflow second, preconditions third. No filler and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter activation tool with no output schema, the description covers effect, human-in-the-loop safeguards, and prerequisites well. It omits only post-activation behavior such as reversibility or failure modes, a minor gap.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself pointing to list_campaigns as the source. The description adds no format or lookup detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (activate) plus resource (campaign) and the concrete consequence: it starts emailing enrolled contacts on schedule. This distinguishes it from deactivate_campaign and complete_campaign without needing the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit gated workflow: show get_campaign_review first, use send_campaign_test, and launch only after user confirmation. It names the sibling tools to use beforehand, so the agent knows both when to call this and when not to yet.

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