launch_campaign

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

Beyond destructiveHint: true, the description reveals real send consequences, duplicate refusal with 409 and a specific error shape, scheduling behavior, suppression of leads, and idempotent replay. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before triggering an external mail operation.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. The description front-loads the core purpose, then moves to scheduling/suppression, return value, duplicate behavior, and idempotency. The length is justified because sending real email carries significant side effects that the agent must understand.

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 eight parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and a destructive hint, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the return shape, duplicate error handling, idempotency behavior, scheduling semantics, and when to avoid relaunching. No critical information needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description enumerates all primary parameters (name, offer, leads, sequence, sendWindow, timezone, stopOnReply) and clarifies the essential idempotencyKey usage. It also adds meaning beyond the schema: 'the platform does not write copy', step fields, and suppressed-lead skipping. It doesn't explain every nested field, but the schema's structure and defaults cover those details.

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 is unambiguous: 'Create and activate a campaign on a lead list' names a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_campaigns or pause by emphasizing that the platform actually sends real mail and does not write copy.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: don't relaunch an identical 60-second campaign; check the existing campaign via its campaignId instead. It also explains when it is legitimate to launch again, and instructs to resend the same idempotencyKey when retrying a lost response.

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