Create campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It states the tool creates a campaign and mentions manual vs. scheduled execution, but it does not clarify whether creating a campaign automatically sends it or merely stores it for later execution (siblings like gambot_run_campaign and gambot_send_campaign suggest a separate step). It also omits side effects, permission requirements, or what happens on validation failure. This is a significant gap for a complex 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 dense but every clause earns its place, covering the main decision axes (message type, audience, scheduling) in a logical order. It front-loads the core purpose and then groups related parameters together, making it easy to scan. No redundant or filler content.

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's complexity (17 parameters, nested objects, multiple modes), the description addresses the critical branches: template vs. regular, Excel vs. ContactFilters vs. ContactsQuery, and once vs. repeated scheduling. It does not enumerate every parameter (e.g., fromNumberId, templateVariableQuery), but those are documented in the schema. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the fact that creation tools typically return a campaign ID, though this is not stated. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to make correct choices.

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?

The schema already covers 82% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining conditional relationships (e.g., messageType='Template' requires wabaTemplateId; messageType='regular' requires message; recipientSource='Excel' pairs with ExcelData; scheduling logic with runAt/timezone vs. interval/endCondition). These are not fully derivable from individual schema entries, so it raises the score above baseline.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Create a WhatsApp broadcast campaign.' It distinguishes itself from sibling creation tools like gambot_create_template and gambot_send_text by focusing on campaign creation, and it breaks down the core variants (manual/scheduled, template/regular) without ambiguity.

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 gives concrete guidance on parameter combinations (messageType with wabaTemplateId vs. message, recipientSource options, scheduling configuration), which effectively tells the agent how to configure the call. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over siblings such as gambot_run_campaign or gambot_send_campaign, nor state exclusions (e.g., 'for a single message use send_text'). The usage context is clear but alternatives are not spelled out.

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