Create campaign

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

Annotations only declare the generic write/openWorld/idempotent=false profile, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: no activation flag is sent, the returned status is whatever Instantly reports (normally "draft"), read-only env gating, demo mode returning simulated:true with no HTTP call, and a mandatory opt-out line in every email body. This is exactly the context annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and safety scoping, then the two-phase workflow, then edge behaviors. Every sentence delivers operational information an agent must act on; no filler or restatement of the title.

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 mutation tool with nested objects, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition still tells the agent what is returned (Instantly's status), what is required for compliance (opt-out line), and how the confirmation cycle works. Nothing critical to correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the two most non-obvious parameters well (confirm and confirmation_token, including the token's origin and ordering), but name, steps, schedule, and sending_accounts are left to the JSON Schema constraints alone. Partial compensation for a 6-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Create an Instantly campaign") and immediately scopes it ("never activates it"). An agent can distinguish this from sdr_push_to_campaign or sdr_save_prospects without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit two-phase protocol: call without confirm for a preview + confirmation_token, show the preview to the user, then call again with confirm=true and the token after explicit approval. It also names the conditions that change behavior (OPENSDR_READ_ONLY, demo mode), leaving nothing to inference.

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