send_campaign

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical context: it sends real email to real recipients and cannot be undone once started. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the consequence of the destructive action. It does not add details on permission requirements or delivery behavior, but the warning is strong.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and scope. Every phrase earns its place—the warning and prerequisite add substantive value without bloat.

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 destructive nature, the description covers the critical elements: action, scheduling, irreversibility, and a prerequisite check. It lacks mention of return values or how to verify delivery, but with sibling tools like get_campaign and list_campaigns available, this is sufficient.

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 of parameter descriptions, so the description adds no new parameter-level detail. The mention of 'scheduled_at' for future scheduling echoes the schema rather than enriching it. This meets the baseline for well-schemaed tools.

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 states the tool's function: sending a campaign immediately or scheduling it via scheduled_at. It distinguishes itself from siblings like send_email by specifying 'campaign' as the resource. The verb 'send' is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs to confirm the audience with get_campaign before sending, providing a clear prerequisite and alternative tool. It also explains the scheduling option, covering the two main usage modes.

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