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

Annotations already declare write/non-idempotent/open-world, and the description adds genuinely new context: the created object is an inert draft and from_email must be a pre-approved sender, which is a real precondition that causes failures. It does not cover error behavior (e.g. duplicate name on a non-idempotent create) or what the response returns, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste, front-loaded with the WRITE prefix and the draft-state qualifier before the follow-up workflow. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 8-parameter write tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers lifecycle and the key precondition well. The one notable gap is that it never hints that the response yields the campaign id required by laposta_set_campaign_content, which an agent must chain.

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 all 8 parameters including the approved-sender constraint on from_email are already documented in the schema. The description reiterates the from_email prerequisite but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('create a new regular campaign') and immediately narrows the scope with 'a draft: it is NOT filled, scheduled or sent'. An agent can distinguish this from the read/update siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Names the exact follow-up tools (laposta_set_campaign_content, laposta_send_test_email) and states that sending happens in the Laposta app, which also tells the agent there is no send tool to look for. The 'NOT filled, scheduled or sent' clause defines the boundary of the operation explicitly.

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