zuckerbot_activate_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool is unavailable and that intelligence campaigns are planning-only, indicating the operation is not live and has no current effect. It does not speculate on error behavior, but it gives enough context to prevent an agent from expecting activation.

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 concise sentences carry maximum signal: the unavailability status first, then the correct alternative path. No filler, no repeated schema information. This is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

The description tells the agent what not to do and names the live path, which is good. However, it instructs 'create a legacy-mode draft' without naming which sibling tool handles that path, leaving a small inference gap. Given the range of create_campaign* siblings, this is not fully complete conditional routing.

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 100%, so the parameter bytes are already fully documented by the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but since the tool is disabled, parameter semantics are less relevant. Baseline 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 clearly communicates that the tool is not currently available and that intelligence campaigns are planning-only, which immediately tells an agent this is not an active activation tool. It also differentiates itself from zuckerbot_launch_campaign by naming that sibling as the live path. It does not describe the operation's intended function in positive terms, but for a disabled tool this is the most relevant clarity.

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 is explicit: do not use this tool now; instead create a legacy-mode draft and use zuckerbot_launch_campaign for the supported live path. This gives the agent a firm instruction and a named alternative. This is the strongest possible usage guidance.

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