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

Annotations declare non-destructive, non-open-world, non-idempotent, but they do not convey that this step has no sending side effect. The description supplies exactly that key trait — nothing is sent until confirm_action — which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured fields. It omits auth requirements and response shape, but the confirmation gate is the important disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the critical sequencing constraint. Every clause 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and useful annotations, the description covers the essential two-step flow and the no-send guarantee. It leaves the campaign_id's expected form/lifecycle and any failure modes unaddressed, which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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?

There is one required parameter, campaign_id, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden and says nothing about it. The implicit constraint that it must reference a draft campaign is inferable but not stated, so the description adds little meaning over the bare 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?

States a specific action (prepare a draft campaign for launch) on a specific resource, and implicitly distinguishes itself from confirm_action, which it names as the completing step. The verb 'prepare' is slightly soft, but the lifecycle stage is unambiguous.

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 clear context: call this while the campaign is a draft, and sending only happens after confirm_action once the user agrees in chat. It routes the agent to the sibling that completes the flow, though it never states an explicit exclusion (e.g. do not use on already-sent campaigns).

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