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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructive, openWorld, non-idempotent) by explaining that the send is immediate and irrevocable, that it mutates state outside the app, and by fully documenting the two-step confirmation/confirmToken handshake including the safe no-op first call.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does and the key constraint (irreversible) before the operational caveats and the confirmation mechanics. It is dense but nearly every sentence carries unique information; the confirmation paragraph is long but necessary.

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, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers timing, prerequisites, side effects, and the exact confirmation protocol an agent must follow, leaving nothing essential unstated.

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 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the origin of broadcastId (readCampaigns), the strategic reason for a new subject, and explicit warnings never to invent or reuse an unconfirmed confirmToken.

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 with precise scope: re-send a previously sent campaign as a new campaign to non-openers only. This clearly separates it from siblings like draftCampaign, scheduleCampaign, and readCampaigns.

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?

Gives explicit prerequisites and alternatives: readCampaigns lists the broadcastId, readDeliverability should be checked first, wait a day or two after the first send, and only works for workspaces with subscribed email contacts. It also advises on when to supply a new subject.

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