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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: the tool both authorizes and starts, launch is conditional on list type and workspace capabilities, and the returned result carries an authorization decision rather than a guaranteed launch. It still omits what side effects (real outbound calls) occur and what happens on denial.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. The second sentence packs the conditional launch behavior and the return-value caveat efficiently, though the 'Existing-customer / consented lists' phrasing is dense enough to slow parsing.

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, non-idempotent, open-world tool with no output schema, the description should carry more of the return and failure story. It does explain that the result carries the authorization decision, but leaves unclear what happens when authorization is denied, whether the action is reversible, and what downstream effects the launch triggers.

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 50%: organization_id is documented in-schema (defaults to authenticated workspace, must match it), while campaign_id has no schema description. The description supplies the key implicit constraint that the target must be a draft campaign, partly compensating, but adds no format or identity details for campaign_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 compound verb (authorize and start) and a precise resource scope (a draft campaign), which cleanly separates it from create_campaign, pause_campaign, and resume_campaign. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself with resume_campaign, so it falls short of a 5.

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 conditional clause 'Existing-customer / consented lists on active workspace capabilities start immediately' implies when a launch is immediately effective versus when it stalls for authorization, which hints at usage context. But it never says when to prefer this over resume_campaign/pause_campaign, nor does it state the prerequisite that the campaign must already be a draft.

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