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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Nothing is created' — no contradiction. It adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: the output is rendered as a card with a Create campaign button, and the agent must pause rather than proceed. It stops short of covering persistence or repeat-call behavior, but the annotated safety profile is well corroborated.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the no-side-effect guarantee, then the argument-sourcing rule, then the wait-and-confirm protocol. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the closing sentence about create.arguments is long and could be tightened.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the preview payload (emails, send days, schedule, inboxes, fixes) and the card UI. Combined with the annotated safety profile and a fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and know what to do next.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by mapping the parameter set onto a sibling tool ('the same team, name, emails, sender profiles and schedule you would pass to setup_outbound_campaign'), which tells the agent how to source values without re-deriving them. No per-parameter format detail is added beyond that.

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+resource (preview a campaign draft) and enumerates exactly what the preview shows: each email, send day, schedule, sending inboxes, and issues to fix. It is immediately distinguishable from setup_outbound_campaign, which it names as the actual creation step.

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 explicit sequencing: call this after writing the copy with the user, with the same arguments you would pass to setup_outbound_campaign, then wait for the user to create from the card or tell you to. It also states the exclusion condition — only call setup_outbound_campaign with create.arguments if the user asks in the conversation.

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