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

Annotations already flag destructive/non-idempotent, but the description adds substantive context beyond them: cannot be undone, consumes plan sends, is queued asynchronously, and requires polling emailchef_get_campaign for final state. That async behavior is not derivable from the annotations.

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 the irreversible warning in caps before any procedural detail, which is the right ordering, and every clause carries information. It is a dense, comma-chained single paragraph, so readability suffers slightly even though nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the return-side behavior (async queue, poll get_campaign) as well as preconditions, side effects, and the approval gate. An agent has everything needed to invoke it safely.

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% and both parameters are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning about which campaign_id values are valid (DRAFT or FAILED only) and reinforces confirm=true as the explicit-approval gate, though it gives no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 ('start sending a DRAFT (or FAILED) campaign immediately to ALL its recipients') plus the endpoint, and implicitly distinguishes itself from schedule_campaign and send_test_campaign by emphasizing immediate, irreversible delivery to all recipients.

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?

Explicitly names prerequisites and the alternative path: check recipients via emailchef_get_campaign, verify sender and subscription, ideally run emailchef_send_test_campaign first, and only proceed with explicit user approval. The 'when' and the guard conditions are spelled out rather than inferred.

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