run_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description responsibly discloses key behavioral traits: it logs every reaction, runs all variant x replicate pairs, and configures cognition via environment variable or heuristic. It does not mention side effects like overwriting previous results, but the mutation is implicit in a run 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 structured into three paragraphs, which is reasonably concise but includes some redundancy (e.g., 'Runs every variant x replicate' is mentioned twice). It could be tightened while retaining clarity.

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 has an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the campaign execution model, cognition backends, and the experimental design, providing sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 input schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions, and the tool description adds context about the paired design and cognition modes but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Run a saved campaign against its audience and log every reaction.' It specifies the verb 'run' and the resource 'campaign', and distinguishes it from siblings like run_simulation (which runs isolated simulations) and create_campaign (which saves a campaign).

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 explains the tool's usage context, including the paired experimental design and the two cognition modes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools for similar tasks, such as run_simulation for ad-hoc experiments.

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