create_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, and it excels. It discloses that this only defines campaign parameters and does not start dialing unless scheduled_start is set, explains concurrency behavior and cost implications, and notes that agent handles calls autonomously. This is rich behavioral context beyond what any annotation could provide.

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 well-structured with clear headers, a sequential workflow, prerequisites, and an args list. While lengthy, every sentence earns its place by adding actionable information—no fluff. The front-loaded summary ensures quick understanding.

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 complexity, the lack of annotations, and the 0% schema coverage, this description is exceptionally complete. It covers the full workflow, prerequisites, concurrency guidance, and parameter details. Since an output schema exists, the description appropriately avoids explaining return values, focusing on the behavioral and usage context.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the 'Args' section explains every parameter in plain language, including the ISO 8601 format for scheduled_start, the default for max_concurrent_calls, and the meaning of call_list_id. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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+resource: 'Create an outbound calling campaign to dial a list of contacts.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like start_campaign, pause_campaign, and get_campaign by explicitly outlining the campaign lifecycle where this tool only creates and configures the campaign, not starts or monitors it.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance through a numbered workflow that places this tool as step 1, followed by start_campaign. It also lists prerequisites (create_agent, list_numbers, call_list_id) and references sibling tools for each subsequent action, giving clear context on how this tool fits into the broader process.

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