draft_save_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. While it discloses the main effect (draft to live conversion), it omits crucial behavioral details such as reversibility, required permissions, what happens if the ID is already live, or any side effects. For a mutation tool that changes campaign status, this is a significant gap.

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, clear sentence: 'Save/publish a draft campaign (converts draft to live campaign)'. It is concise, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), so the description covers the core action. However, as a publish/mutation operation with no annotations, it lacks context about the consequences and error behavior. The description is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to understand the full impact.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with description 'Draft campaign ID'. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond saying it's for a draft campaign, which matches the schema. With high schema coverage, a baseline 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 clearly states the action: 'Save/publish a draft campaign' and explicitly explains the outcome: 'converts draft to live campaign'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like draft_create_campaign, draft_update_campaign, and draft_delete_campaign, which have different purposes.

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 the primary use case: for draft campaigns that should be converted to live status. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., draft_update_campaign for editing drafts, or create_campaign for creating a live campaign directly), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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