Start a campaign

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals critical real-world behavior: 'THIS SPENDS MONEY AND MAKES REAL PHONES RING', one call per lead, and the insufficient_credits refusal. It also states the required scope. This gives the agent essential safety-relevant information that annotations alone do not provide.

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 three sentences and every sentence earns its place: the core action, the cost/safety warning, and the error condition plus scope. The key purpose is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main things an agent needs: what happens, the real-world side effects, the confirmation prerequisite, a specific failure mode, and the required scope. It doesn't describe the success response shape, but that is not essential for tool selection and invocation.

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 baseline applies: the schema documents the single 'id' parameter with an example. The description doesn't add param-specific semantic detail, but the tool's purpose makes clear that 'id' refers to the campaign to start

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Begin calling every lead on the campaign', clarifying the scope ('every lead') and the action. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like pause_campaign, delete_campaign, or create_campaign.

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 clearly says when to use it: to start calling all leads on a campaign, and it adds an explicit precondition—'confirm with the user before calling it'. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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