content_full_campaign

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful scoping context (JWT, tenant, company) and the routing behavior, but it does not disclose what side effects `full_campaign` may have, what resources it may modify, or whether it is synchronous or asynchronous.

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 compact, front-loaded with the action, and organized with an Args list. It has no filler, though 'Run the content domain agent action' partially restates the tool name and could have been more informative.

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 potentially destructive, open-world domain action, the description never defines what `full_campaign` does or when to call it. With many content sibling tools available, an agent has no basis to distinguish this from `content_generate_plan`, `content_dispatch`, or other content workflows; the presence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing action semantics.

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?

Though schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining that `message` is a free-text objective and `inputs` is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. It adds real meaning beyond the schema's bare names and defaults, though it does not specify the expected JSON shape or how the two arguments interact.

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 verb 'Run' and names the exact domain action `full_campaign`, so it is not a pure tautology. However, it never explains what a 'full campaign' actually does or what outcome the agent should expect, leaving the purpose vague for an agent that does not already know the domain jargon.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The description explains the dispatch mechanism and scoping but not why an agent should choose `content_full_campaign` over sibling content tools like `content_generate_plan`, `content_schedule`, or the generic `dispatch_domain_agent`.

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