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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does so richly: it creates but does not send, persists a specific set of campaign attributes, supports exclusions by normalized email and saved recipient snapshots, and rejects U+2014 em dashes. This is far more than the annotations imply.

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?

Three dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence contributes: the first defines the operation, the second details what is persisted and excluded, and the third gives the validation prerequisite.

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?

Given the 14-parameter complexity, 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, exclusion semantics, the em-dash constraint, and the required validation step. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by grouping the side effects into concepts like 'active subscribed recipients', 'exact playlist', and 'creator identity', and by clarifying the meaning of the two exclusion parameters with 'normalized-email members' versus 'exact saved recipient snapshots'. Much is a synthesis of the schema, but the grouping and workflow guidance are genuinely useful.

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 opens with a specific, unambiguous action: 'Create and read back a complete Draft-status campaign without sending it.' It names the resource, the status, and the key boundary (no send), which clearly distinguishes it from send, validate, and read-only campaign tools.

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 gives actionable guidance: 'Use campaign exclusions for historical no-repeat guarantees' and 'Run droptrack_validate_campaign_draft before opening the native Send Test flow.' It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name a direct alternative, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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