hires_create_nurture_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating that steps are executed sequentially and listing the allowed step types with type-specific fields. However, it does not disclose what happens upon creation (e.g., return value, whether the campaign is active immediately), permissions required, or any side effects, leaving significant gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every phrase earns its place: it names the operation, describes the steps, and notes the optional workflow binding—all without repeating schema details or adding 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?

This is a complex tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It fails to mention what the tool returns, how the campaign is triggered, or any default behaviors (e.g., `send_to_all`). The description is a minimal summary that leaves many operational questions unanswered for an agent to invoke the tool reliably.

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?

Although the schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning beyond the structured fields. It explicitly enumerates the six step types, highlighting the polymorphic structure of the steps array, and clarifies that steps run sequentially—information not directly evident from the JSON schema. It also mentions optional workflow binding, which helps interpret the `workflow_id` and `stage_id` parameters.

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 begins with 'Create a nurture campaign with steps,' which clearly states the primary action and resource. It distinguishes the tool from sibling create/update/delete/list operations for nurture campaigns, and the mention of 'bind to a workflow stage' adds relevant scope without confusion.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for creating new campaigns while update is for modifying existing ones, nor does it suggest any prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. Usage is only implied by the verb 'create'.

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