mktg.manage_campaigns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates, updates, or lists campaigns, which implies mutating behavior, but it does not disclose return values, pagination, side effects, partial update semantics, or any required permissions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient transparency beyond basic CRUD.

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 two sentences and relatively efficient. The first sentence states the primary actions; the second expands on what 'manage' covers. However, the second sentence is somewhat redundant with the first, as 'create, update, or list' already implies management. Still, it is concise with no filler or excessive length.

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 CRUD tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's actions and the main data fields. It does not explain return values or edge cases like pagination or the need for campaign_id in updates, but the schema covers the campaign_id requirement. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is minimally viable but leaves some contextual gaps.

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% (all parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it repeats the list of campaign details (channel, budget, target audience, email templates) that already appear in the 'data' parameter description. No additional meaning or syntax is provided beyond what the schema already contains.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Create, update, or list marketing campaigns.' It names a specific verb ('create', 'update', 'list') and a specific resource ('marketing campaigns'), and further details the managed fields (channel, budget, target audience, email templates). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mktg.send_campaign_email and mktg.query_analytics, which have different purposes.

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 when to use the tool (for CRUD operations on campaigns) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as send_campaign_email or query_analytics. There is no direct statement about when not to use this tool or which sibling should be used instead. The action enum helps clarify, but the prose lacks explicit usage guidance.

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