create_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that estimate_only=true previews reach without sending, but it does not disclose what happens on success (e.g., campaign ID, scheduling behavior, whether it sends immediately) or state any side effects beyond creation. This is a significant gap for a tool that creates a real campaign.

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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the most important option (estimate_only) is mentioned clearly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and complex behavior (scheduling, multiple channels), the description is fairly minimal. It does not address the return format, how 'when' scheduling works, or how to construct content for each channel beyond the schema examples. However, the schema is thorough, so the description is not inadequate, but it lacks useful guidance on the tool's broader behavior and alternatives.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters with descriptions and examples for content. The description adds the channel list and estimate_only context, but these repeat the enum and the schema description. Since coverage is high, the baseline 3 applies; the description does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a CleverTap campaign') and lists the supported channels. Clearly differentiates from sibling tools like send_push and send_email by centering on campaign creation rather than one-off sends, and adds the estimate_only preview option.

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 implies a general campaign-creation use case and mentions estimate_only for preview, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling send_* tools (e.g., immediate sends vs. scheduled campaigns). No exclusions or alternative routing are given, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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