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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: results are saved as new variants and never overwrite existing text, an empty campaign receives the drafted steps, each email is validated against a content checklist, and failures are returned in 'problems'. It also discloses the offer-profile configuration prerequisite and the update_offer_profile path, which annotations alone do not convey.

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 core action, then layers mode meaning, safety behavior, validation, and prerequisites in logical order. Length is justified by the tool's complexity, though the opening sentence partially repeats the title.

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 carries the burden and does so reasonably: it explains what gets produced (new variants, drafted steps for an empty campaign) and what comes back on failure (problems list). A short note on how the produced variants relate to the campaign id would make it complete.

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 83% and the schema already documents mode, angle, steps, persona, and variantId, so the description's restatement of the modes adds little. It does clarify that drafts draw 'only on facts from the offer profile and lead fields', but the naming overlap between the 'angle' mode and the 'angle' notes parameter is left to the schema to disambiguate.

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 ('Write emails with AI from the offer profile') and immediately enumerates the two operational modes (draft a full sequence vs. a new version of one variant). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the related sibling set_sequence, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 context for each mode ('sequence = draft every step; rewrite, shorter, angle = a new version of one variant') and states a prerequisite: the workspace's offer profile must be configured, otherwise use update_offer_profile. No explicit when-not-to-use beyond the prerequisite.

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