send_to_campaign

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses consequential behavior: leads on a running campaign can start receiving messages, the tool does not send or start anything itself, duplicates are avoided, leads must belong to the authenticated account, and importing dead emails damages sender reputation. This adds substantial context beyond the structured hints and does not contradict them.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then efficiently covers consequences, exclusions, prerequisites, and warnings. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's consequential nature.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, its side effects, prerequisites, failure conditions, and related verification guidance. For a bulk mutation tool with this level of consequence, the description is complete and self-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 schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful constraints not in the schema: the 500-lead batch limit, the requirement that every lead belong to the authenticated account, and the idempotent no-duplicate behavior. This raises it above the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add saved leads to a campaign's contact list in bulk, up to 500 at a time.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling lead-management tools by framing it as the step that puts leads into an outreach sequence, and it explicitly clarifies what the tool does NOT do (send or start the campaign).

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 gives strong usage context: it explains that this is how leads enter an outreach sequence, warns about consequences, and instructs users to verify addresses with verify_emails first. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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