schedule_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the core behavior (scheduling for future time) but discloses no prerequisites, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing schedules), required campaign state, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a scheduling action.

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, front-loaded sentence that is appropriately concise. Every word contributes to the core meaning, and there is no redundant or extraneous content.

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?

With no output schema and minimal description, the tool's behavior is under-specified. The description does not explain how scheduling interacts with the campaign lifecycle, whether it can modify an existing schedule, or any conditions for use. Given the context of many related sibling tools, this is incomplete.

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% for both parameters, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents parameters sufficiently; the description does not need to compensate.

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 'Schedule a campaign for a future date/time' clearly states the action (schedule) and resource (campaign), with the specific detail of future timing. It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like send_campaign (immediate send) and create_campaign (creation).

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 usage context (future scheduling) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like send_campaign or note when not to use. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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