send_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action is immediate and requires preconfiguration, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., campaign status changes), idempotency, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a state-changing tool, this is insufficient.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence immediately states the purpose ('send a campaign immediately'), and the second provides a key precondition. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description covers the basic action and precondition. However, it omits behavioral details like error conditions or campaign status after sending, which would be helpful for completeness.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description does not explain what 'campaign_id' is or how it should be obtained, beyond the schema field name. With no additional semantics, the agent gets no help beyond the parameter name.

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 clearly states the action 'Send a campaign immediately' and the resource 'campaign'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_campaign' (which creates but doesn't send) and 'list_campaigns' (listing). The precondition 'must have a list and message configured' adds specificity.

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 specifies when to use the tool: to send a campaign immediately, with the necessary conditions. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools (e.g., scheduling options or related actions).

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