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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried. The description adds the provider-specific restriction that Manual is disallowed and hints at validation via 'mode checks', but never says what setting a campaign Off actually does (halt sending, cancel pending sends, affect schedules).

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, front-loaded sentences with no redundant restatement of the title. 'through the existing mode checks' is the only phrasing that doesn't earn 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 destructive, nested-body mutation with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin: it doesn't pin down the accepted status values, the effect of the change, or prerequisite identifiers. Key information an agent needs to call this safely 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 coverage is 0% and the status field has no enum, so the description's mention of 'Off or Manual' is the only hint at valid values — a real contribution. However it leaves the value set ambiguous (is Manual ever accepted? is there an 'On' mode?), and says nothing about campaign_id/team_id beyond what their names imply.

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 and resource ('Set a campaign Off or Manual') and names the mode values, which the name alone doesn't convey. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as pause_campaign_schedule or disable_campaign_schedule, so an agent must infer how mode-setting differs from pausing a schedule.

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?

There is one useful exclusion — 'MagicPitch does not allow Manual' — but no statement of when to reach for this tool versus pause/disable_campaign_schedule or schedule_campaign. 'through the existing mode checks' is not actionable guidance.

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