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

Adds substantive behavior beyond the annotations: the call spends AiSensy credit, creates a new contact when the number is unknown, resends on every call, and requires a human approval gate before confirm=true. Those are the exact side effects an agent needs before firing a destructive, non-idempotent write.

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-loaded with the risk signal (WRITE, SPENDS CREDIT) before any detail, then a compact colon-separated chain of constraints and the endpoint. Every clause carries operational value; nothing is padding.

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 11-parameter destructive write with nested objects, it covers cost, idempotency, contact creation, and the approval gate. It says nothing about the response (no output schema exists) or media-template requirements, though the schema covers those parameter-level details.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters including template_params ordering and confirm semantics. The description only restates the template_params count constraint and the confirmation workflow, adding little new parameter meaning.

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 ('send the template of a LIVE API campaign to one phone number') and flags it as a write that costs credit. This clearly separates it from the generic sibling aisensy_send_message and from read tools like aisensy_list_api_campaigns.

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: show the user the recipient and template first and set confirm=true only after approval, and points at aisensy_list_api_campaigns to find a LIVE campaign. It does not explicitly say when to prefer aisensy_send_message over this tool, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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