Create Email Campaign

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: everything is optional for stepwise drafting, the result is saved as a draft, and critically that this server cannot send or schedule. It stops short of describing rate limits or return shape.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each subsequent sentence carries distinct information (optionality, audience composition, draft state, no-send constraint). Slightly dense but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a 10-parameter, zero-required creation tool with annotations but no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral facts an agent needs (draft-only, no scheduling, audience math). It does not say what the call returns, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining the union semantics of the three audience arrays and pointing to list-lists/list-tags for valid IDs, which is beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Create an email campaign') and immediately scopes it as a draft-building tool, which cleanly separates it from sibling mutators like update-email-campaign, create-sms-campaign, and create-template.

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 real operational context: all fields optional for incremental building, the audience is the union of list_ids/tag_ids/segment_ids, and it routes to list-lists and list-tags for ID discovery. It lacks an explicit statement of when to prefer this over update-email-campaign or create-template, so it falls short of a 5.

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