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

Annotations indicate it's a mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it submits for admin review and approval, implying a status change. This provides useful context beyond 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?

The description is two sentences, no wasted words, and front-loads the action. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple mutation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately states purpose and precondition. It could mention what happens after submission (e.g., status change), but it's still fairly complete.

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 only one parameter (id) with a schema description that explains it is the UUID of the draft campaign. The tool description already mentions submitting a draft campaign, so the parameter meaning is clear. No additional semantics are needed.

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 clearly states the action ('submit'), the resource ('draft campaign'), and the precondition ('must be in draft status'). It differentiates from sibling tools like create_campaign, delete_campaign, update_campaign, etc.

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?

The description specifies that the campaign must be in 'draft' status, providing a clear condition for use. Although it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the precondition is sufficient for guidance.

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