ghl_create_email_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a create/mutation operation and that it uses a template, but it does not mention return values, what happens if scheduledAt is omitted, or any side effects. This is a moderate level of transparency, sufficient for a straightforward create tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and key details. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple create tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and the prerequisite (existing template). However, it lacks information about return values or error conditions, and the scheduling behavior is only implied by 'scheduled send'. Sibling tools are not referenced for disambiguation, leaving some gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter context beyond the schema: it clarifies that templateId refers to an existing email builder template. It does not elaborate on scheduledAt behavior or name/subject semantics, but the schema already describes these sufficiently.

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 action (create), the resource (email marketing campaign), and a key differentiator (scheduled send using an existing template). This distinguishes it from siblings like ghl_send_email (immediate send) and ghl_create_email_builder_template (template creation).

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 implies usage context: it creates a scheduled campaign and requires an existing template. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, the phrase 'scheduled send' and 'using an existing email builder template' gives clear contextual guidance. Sibling tools like ghl_send_email are implicitly contrasted.

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