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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the checklist gate with refusal semantics, the schedule-window constraint, and the confirm_token preview gate that protects against accidental launches. This is exactly the kind of pre-call behavior an agent needs for a destructive action.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the gating conditions, then the confirmation flow. Only 'The worker then sends inside the schedule window' is slightly jargon-y, but it still earns its place by explaining timing.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains what the first call returns (a preview plus confirm_token), which is the key return-value information. It stops short of stating permanence or reversibility of the launch, but the confirmation gate covers the main risk.

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 50% and the confirm_token parameter already carries a detailed schema description, which the prose reinforces ('the first call returns a preview and a confirm_token'). The required 'id' parameter is left unexplained in both places, though campaign id is inferable from context.

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 ('Launch or resume a campaign') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings like pause_campaign, preview_campaign and create_campaign by describing the actual launch execution. The agent can tell what this tool does without opening the 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?

Gives clear when-to-use context: it is the execution step, it runs the checklist first and refuses on failed required items, and it requires a two-step confirmation. It does not explicitly point to get_launch_checklist or preview_campaign as the way to pre-check, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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