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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that campaigns are created paused, that shared outreach quotas are preserved, and that administrator authorization is required. These are useful traits beyond the schema. However, it omits other important behaviors such as idempotency handling, what happens on duplicate idempotency keys, or the effect on quota balances.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded, with no filler or redundant phrasing. Both sentences earn their place. A minor deduction is warranted because the phrase 'preserved shared outreach quotas' is dense and would benefit from elaboration without increasing length much.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity: two required parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers authorization and the paused/quota behavior, but it fails to explain idempotency semantics, the expected return value, or the exact effect on quotas. For an agent to call this correctly, important context is still missing.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not mention the 'campaign' object or 'idempotencyKey' at all. The nested parameter structure, defaults, and idempotency contract are left entirely unexplained. This is a major gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a paused campaign within preserved shared outreach quotas.' It clearly identifies the operation and the paused state, which distinguishes it from read_campaigns and other create_* siblings. However, 'preserved shared outreach quotas' is jargon and not fully explained, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The usage context is implied: use this to create a campaign while preserving shared outreach quotas. It also notes a prerequisite ('Separate administrator authorization is required'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name any alternative tools. There is no clear exclusion or comparison to siblings such as authorize_campaign.

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