createBulkCall

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the mutation/safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that, such as 'A dynamic campaign stays alive waiting for contacts instead of completing when its queue drains' and the three execution modes (immediate, scheduled, auto-retry). It does not contradict 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: it front-loads the core action, then uses bold headers and bullet-like paragraphs for static/dynamic distinction. Every sentence earns its place, and the 'Tags: Bulk calls' line at the end is the only minor extraneous element.

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?

The description covers the key decision (static vs. dynamic) and the dynamic campaign's lifecycle behavior, while the rich input schema handles parameter details. There is no output schema, but for a create tool the missing return-value info is acceptable. It doesn't mention scheduling prerequisites, but the schema covers those constraints.

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% with detailed per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual value by tying is_dynamic to contact_list optionality and the webhook, and clearly explaining the two campaign categories—useful for selecting the right parameter combinations beyond what schema descriptions individually provide.

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 statement, 'Create a new bulk-call campaign,' and then immediately distinguishes static vs. dynamic campaign types. This differentiates it clearly from sibling tools like fetchBulkCalls, cancelBulkCall, and getBulkCall, which operate on existing campaigns.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use static vs. dynamic campaigns (e.g., dynamic for real-time ingestion via webhook, static as default), which helps the agent decide which parameters to set. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use this instead of X,' so it stops short of a 5.

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