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

Annotations establish it is a non-read, non-destructive, open-world write. The description adds genuine context beyond them: activation depends on posts already being approved, publishing happens on a schedule, and user confirmation is required before invoking. It stops short of saying whether activation is reversible or what happens to unapproved posts.

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, effect stated first and the safety instruction second. Nothing wasted or buried.

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?

Covers the core action and the confirmation requirement, but for a mutation tool with no output schema it says nothing about the prerequisite campaign state, failure behavior, reversibility, or the undocumented confirmStackedChange flag. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and provides nothing: projectId, siteId, campaignId and especially confirmStackedChange are never explained. 'Approved posts' hints loosely at campaign state but does not map to any parameter.

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 ('Start a campaign') and the outcome ('approved posts are published on schedule'), which distinguishes it from read/maintenance siblings. It does not explicitly separate itself from resume_distribution_campaign or activate_content_plan, which an agent could plausibly confuse with it.

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?

'Confirm with the user first' gives one real precondition, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over resume_distribution_campaign or pause_distribution_campaign, nor what state the campaign must already be in. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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