campaigns_trigger_send

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and fails to. It does not state that this is a live send (irreversible), whether send_id deduplicates or provides idempotency, auth requirements beyond the apiKey field, rate limits, or what a successful response contains.

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?

Two tight sentences, purpose front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite, with no filler. It is efficient, though the sparseness is a coverage problem rather than a conciseness virtue.

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 an 8-parameter send tool with nested audience/recipients objects, zero annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. An agent gets no guidance on the audience/recipients/broadcast interaction, recipient dedup via send_id, or what constitutes success.

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 75%, so the schema documents most parameters (apiKey, send_id, campaign_id, restEndpoint, recipients, trigger_properties) while broadcast and audience are bare. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — notably it never explains audience vs recipients or broadcast semantics — so the baseline 3 stands.

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 (Trigger) and resource (API-triggered campaign) and names Braze as the system. It does not differentiate itself from near-siblings like canvas_trigger_send or messages_send, so an agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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?

Provides one real prerequisite — the campaign must be pre-configured as API-triggered — which is genuinely actionable. It says nothing about when to prefer this over canvas_trigger_send, messages_send, or campaigns_schedule_create, so alternative-selection is left to inference.

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