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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive mutation with external effects. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what state change occurs, whether a paused campaign is required, whether resuming re-sends queued messages, or what side effects an open-world call may trigger.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy: it conveys essentially nothing beyond the tool title. Sentence structure is front-loaded but content-free.

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 state-changing, open-world tool with zero parameter documentation and no output schema, the description supplies no information an agent needs to invoke it correctly. An agent cannot determine the meaning of either required ID, the required campaign state, or the expected outcome.

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 0% and both parameters are required integers with no documentation. The description does not clarify which identifier is the contact and which is the campaign, nor any expected format or referential constraint — it leaves the two params completely indistinguishable.

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 verb ('Reprendre') and a resource ('la campagne pour un contact'), so the general intent is inferable, but it never defines what 'resuming' a campaign actually does (restart scheduled sends, re-enable outreach, un-pause a contact?). It also fails to differentiate from the closely related sibling stop_contact_campaign beyond the opposite verb.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stop_contact_campaign or subscribe_to_campaign, and no stated preconditions (e.g., campaign must be paused, contact must be enrolled). The only hint is the tool name itself.

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