Create In-App Campaign

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, non-idempotent). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond those hints: the object is persisted as a `draft` and the server has no send/schedule capability, which an agent could not infer from the annotations. It doesn't cover failure modes or what happens on duplicate names, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, all front-loaded: action first, then the draft state, then the server's limitation. No filler and every sentence carries distinct information.

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 15-parameter nested tool with no output schema, the description covers the crucial lifecycle fact (draft, not sendable) and the schema carries the rest with 80% coverage and defaults. It could go further by noting that activation requires a follow-up update/dashboard step or flagging targeting requirements, but it is adequate.

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 description coverage is 80%, so the schema itself documents nearly all parameters, including enum and default notes (e.g. display_rules defaults, priority semantics). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Create an in-app message campaign') and names the exact channel, which cleanly separates it from the create-email-campaign, create-sms-campaign, and create-push-campaign siblings.

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?

It discloses an important constraint (the campaign lands as a draft and this server cannot send or schedule), which implies the tool is for authoring only. However, it never routes the agent between alternatives such as clone-in-app-campaign, create-template, or update-in-app-campaign, leaving the when-to-use decision implicit.

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