Push to campaign

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

Annotations already state mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, but the description adds far more: the draft/paused gate, the two-phase preview/confirm workflow with a token, the token-invalidation-on-change behavior, the verified-email inclusion policy and allow_unverified exception, the never-suppressed/invalid invariant, OPENSDR_READ_ONLY enforcement, and demo-mode simulated output. This is rich operational context well beyond structured fields.

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, then constraints, then procedure; every clause carries information and none is filler. It is dense to the point of being a run-on block, but nothing can be dropped without losing an operative rule.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what the preview returns (campaign status, eligible vs. excluded with reasons like suppression, no email, unverified, invalid, already in campaign, over cap) and how the mutation behaves. The remaining gap is what the successful confirm returns and the role of the `list` parameter.

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 the load: it explains confirm, confirmation_token (obtained from the preview call), allow_unverified (still never permits suppressed or invalid), and campaign_id implicitly via status constraints. It does not explain the `list` parameter or how prospect_ids interact with it, leaving one of six parameters undocumented.

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?

"Enroll prospects into an existing Instantly campaign" gives a specific verb (enroll) and resource (prospects into a campaign), and the word "existing" plus the campaign-status constraint cleanly separates it from the sibling sdr_create_campaign. An agent can pick this over its siblings without inspecting either 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?

Explicit when-to-use (existing campaign in draft/paused), when-not (active campaigns are rejected because they start sending), and the exact two-phase procedure with preview-then-confirm. The invalidation rule ("if any approved lead changes before confirming... preview again") closes the main usage ambiguity.

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