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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, and the description earnestly adds context beyond them: checklist validation that can refuse the call, sending constrained to the schedule window, and a mandatory preview/confirm_token confirmation gate. It doesn't say whether the launch is reversible or what permissions are required.

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 rule, then the confirmation mechanic. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition or filler.

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 responsibly covers return behavior (a preview plus confirm_token on the first call) and failure behavior (refusal on a failed checklist item). It leaves some gaps: whether the id is a campaign identifier, and whether the confirmed call returns a success status or job handle.

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?

At 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate. The confirmation-flow sentence maps onto confirm_token, but that same behavior is already spelled out in the schema description, so it adds little; the required 'id' parameter is never characterized in either place. Baseline 3 is warranted.

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 adds scope detail (checklist gating, schedule window). It doesn't explicitly contrast with close siblings like pause_campaign or preview_campaign, though the two-step preview flow implies the distinction.

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?

Explains the operating context clearly: the launch checklist runs first and the call refuses on a failed required item, and the call is a two-step confirm flow. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., get_launch_checklist to pre-verify, preview_campaign for a read-only view) or stating when not to use this tool.

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