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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety framing is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: a consent requirement on the contact, an active-state requirement on the campaign, and the fact that campaign steps get scheduled as a side effect. It still omits error behavior and whether scheduling can be undone.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, covering the action and its two preconditions compactly. Minor deduction for being in French while the tool name and siblings are English, which adds a small parsing hop.

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 mutation with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description should close more gaps than it does. It says nothing about what is returned on success, what happens if the contact is already enrolled or the campaign is inactive, or how the scheduled steps can be inspected or cancelled.

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 bare positive integers, so the description must carry the meaning. It only implies that one parameter is the campaign and the other the contact via the nouns 'contact' and 'campagne'; it never maps them to `id` vs `contactId` or explains identifier formats, leaving real ambiguity for the agent.

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 states a specific verb and resource pair: enrolling a contact in an active campaign, plus the scheduling side effect. That is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as stop_contact_campaign or resume_contact_campaign, but the description never names those alternatives to reinforce the distinction.

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?

Usage preconditions are implied rather than spelled out: the contact must be 'consentant' and the campaign must be 'active', which tells the agent when the call is valid. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer resume_contact_campaign or stop_contact_campaign, nor what to do if the campaign is inactive.

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