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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the object is created in a non-active draft state and does nothing until launch_campaign is called. It does not explain why destructiveHint is true for a create, nor that repeated calls are non-idempotent, which are the remaining gaps.

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 sentences, both dense with signal and zero filler; the core 'Create a draft ...' action is front-loaded and the lifecycle caveat is placed last where it belongs. The parenthetical enumerations are compact rather than wasteful.

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 an 18-parameter, deeply nested mutation tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the required-parameter ground and key enums but leaves several optional parameters and the retry_policy object structure undocumented. Adequate as a starting point, but not complete for confident invocation.

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 only 22%, so the description must carry weight, and it does partially: it names consent_basis values (existing_customer | explicit_consent) and retry preset names (sales, collections, single_attempt). But many of the 18 parameters (language, ends_at, time_zone_mode, max_concurrency vs reserved_concurrency distinction, the retry_policy object shape) are left entirely to the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Create a draft outbound campaign') and enumerates the substantive configuration dimensions (agent, caller-id numbers, contact list, purpose, consent basis, calling windows, retry policy, concurrency, schedule). It also draws a clear boundary against the sibling launch_campaign by stating the campaign stays a draft until launched.

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 draft-versus-launch distinction is explicit and directly routes the agent: use this to stage, use launch_campaign to activate. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer update_campaign over creating a new campaign, and no prerequisites (e.g. that the agent, contact list and numbers must already exist) are stated.

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