content_full_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope (basic auth context) but does not indicate whether the action is read-only, destructive, idempotent, or what side effects occur. The agent cannot assess safety or impact.

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 with three sentences: purpose, routing context, and parameter definitions. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., breaking into sections) or include a brief example.

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 simplicity (2 optional params, output schema exists), the description is moderately complete for the mechanics but lacks semantic context about the full_campaign action. It does not explain the purpose of the action or expected outcomes, leaving gaps for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 description adds some meaning beyond the schema: 'message' is a free-text objective, and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. However, it does not specify the expected format or structure of the JSON, and the schema coverage is 0%. The added value is modest, not comprehensive.

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 states the tool runs the 'full_campaign' action in the content domain, but does not explain what the action does or how it differs from other content tools. The verb 'Run' and resource 'content domain agent action full_campaign' are specific, but the purpose of the action remains ambiguous, leaving room for misuse.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative content tools such as content_generate_campaign or content_evolve_strategy. The description lacks any context about the appropriate circumstances for invoking full_campaign, making it hard for the agent to decide.

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