create_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'create new email campaign' and does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it creates a draft), required permissions, or that content and scheduling are separate steps. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is well-structured and easy to parse. While it could be expanded with useful guidance, it is not verbose or redundant, meriting a score above average.

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?

Without annotations, output schema, or additional context, the description is minimal and incomplete. It does not mention that a newly created campaign typically requires content and scheduling via separate tools, nor does it explain return values. Given the 6 parameters and the existence of related campaign workflow tools, more context is needed for successful usage.

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%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The schema already documents each parameter, including the type enum and field purposes. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 'Create a new email campaign' clearly states the action (create) and resource (email campaign). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_campaign, send_campaign, and delete_campaign by its verb and resource. However, it lacks scope details (e.g., draft vs. sent) that would fully differentiate it from related creation actions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or follow-up steps (e.g., setting content or sending). Sibling tools like set_campaign_content and send_campaign exist, but the description offers no context about creating a draft versus a ready-to-send campaign.

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