book_kol_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool creates a campaign ('Broker') and returns a campaign_id, but does not mention side effects, idempotency, required permissions beyond 'Pro tier', error conditions, or rate limits. This is insufficient transparency for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise (two sentences, 25 words) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: first sentence states the action and system, second specifies required inputs and returns. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return format beyond 'campaign_id + next steps', nor does it cover prerequisites, error handling, or the campaign lifecycle. For a business-critical mutation tool, this is incomplete.

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 only 20% (only contact_email has a schema description). The tool description adds meaning by identifying the three required parameters (contact_email, budget_usd, objective) and their role in brokering a campaign. However, it omits any explanation of the two optional parameters (target_audience, launch_window_days), leaving gaps. The description partially compensates for low schema coverage but not fully.

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 ('Broker') and resource ('KOL campaign via BCA Studio CRM'), clearly indicating the tool's action. While it distinguishes itself from the many read-only sibling tools, it does not explicitly contrast with any alternative mutation tools (none exist), so a 4 is appropriate.

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 usage for creating a KOL campaign by listing required parameters and mentioning 'Pro tier'. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention any alternative tools for related tasks (e.g., evaluating KOLs). Usage is implied but not clearly bounded.

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