send_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses irreversibility, a key behavioral trait, and immediacy. However, it does not mention permission requirements, campaign state prerequisites (e.g., must have content), or what happens after sending.

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 short sentences, no redundancy, and the most important information (immediate, irreversible action) is front-loaded. Every word 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 simple action with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and irreversibility. It could add prerequisite context (e.g. campaign must be ready to send), but it is largely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single campaign_id parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action: 'Send a campaign immediately.' The word 'immediately' distinguishes it from scheduling tools like schedule_campaign, though it does not explicitly name that alternative. It is specific and uses a strong verb-resource pairing.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as schedule_campaign. The description implies immediate sending, but it does not state that this should be chosen for immediate delivery, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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