aircall_create_campaign

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the campaign is created 'active' immediately, and the one-active-campaign restriction is disclosed. It stops short of explaining failure modes if the constraint is violated, but the added details are valuable.

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 long, front-loads the primary purpose, and contains no redundant or filler content. Every sentence carries meaningful 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: what it does, the active nature, and the uniqueness constraint. The main gap is not explaining what happens if a user already has an active campaign (rejection vs. replacement), but the constraint is at least stated for the agent to reason about.

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 already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (user_id and phone_numbers with E.164 format). The description's mention of 'list of phone numbers to dial' adds minimal additional semantic value over the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Create an active power dialer campaign for a user with a list of phone numbers to dial.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling campaign tools like aircall_get_campaign, aircall_delete_campaign, and aircall_add_campaign_numbers by specifying the create action and the 'for a user' scope.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to start a new active power dialer campaign. The constraint 'A user can have only one active campaign' gives important usage context, implying the need to check for an existing campaign. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., adding numbers to an existing campaign via aircall_add_campaign_numbers).

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