Send an SMS campaign

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

The description discloses important behaviors beyond annotations: wallet deduction, queuing, upfront cost reservation, idempotency key, and return of campaign reference. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences covering key points: cost, queuing, tracking, idempotency, and auth. No wasted words; front-loaded with wallet deduction.

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?

Although no output schema, the description states a campaign reference is returned for tracking. Covers auth, cost, and idempotency. Missing any note about rate limits or status updates, but acceptable for a campaign send tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., approved sender ID).

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 specifies the verb 'Send' and resource 'SMS campaign', and distinguishes from siblings like hellio_send_otp and hellio_send_voice by targeting multiple recipients and returning a campaign reference.

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 mentions the required 'sms:send' scope but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for one-time OTPs). The context of 'campaign' implies batch sending, but no direct comparison.

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