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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the campaign is created 'as active,' and the goal becomes machine-read input that later account work must argue against. It stops short of saying what happens on duplicate names, which would complete the picture for a non-idempotent create.

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 action and the pre-check are front-loaded and the ordering is correct. Some rhetorical padding ('a folder, not a pursuit') and the inline ticket reference (CRM-13) cost tokens without adding operational guidance, but the core is tight.

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 covers the state effect (created as active) but not what identifier or object comes back, which an agent would want in order to chain into crm_add_account. Otherwise it is complete for a three-parameter, non-destructive create.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by explaining the consequence of `goal` — a research session reads it verbatim and every account's why_them must argue against it — which tells the agent how to write the value rather than just what field to fill.

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 (open/create) and resource (campaign) and immediately defines what a campaign is: 'a named goal that accounts will be pursued under.' That framing distinguishes it cleanly from crm_campaigns (listing) and crm_update_campaign (editing), so an agent can pick it without opening a 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?

Explicitly tells the agent to check crm_campaigns first and to work under an existing goal if it covers the ask, plus a concrete protocol for deriving and confirming the goal with the human. This is exactly the when-to-use / when-not-to-use / alternative pattern.

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