Create SMS Campaign

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

Annotations supply the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description contributes beyond them: the result is saved as a `draft`, and the server cannot send or schedule it. This is meaningful lifecycle context an agent could not infer from the structured fields. It stops short of describing auth requirements or segment-size limits.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and each subsequent sentence adding a distinct, non-redundant fact (audience union, ID resolution, draft state, sending limitation). No 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?

For a 7-param creation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, audience composition, how to source related IDs, the resulting state, and the crucial limitation that sending/scheduling happens elsewhere. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and set user expectations.

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 already 86%, so the schema carries most parameter documentation (baseline 3). The description adds genuine meaning by explaining that the audience is the union of list_ids, tag_ids and segment_ids, which no single param description conveys, and points to the tools that resolve list/tag IDs.

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 channel-scoped resource ('Create an SMS campaign'), which immediately distinguishes it from the sibling create-email-campaign, create-push-campaign, and create-in-app-campaign tools. The follow-up sentence defines the tool's audience semantics, reinforcing exactly what this tool does.

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 concrete routing guidance for gathering inputs ('Find lists with list-lists and tags with list-tags; segments are managed in the Arsel dashboard') and explicitly states the boundary that this server cannot send or schedule. It does not contrast with update-sms-campaign or clone-style alternatives, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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