Run campaign

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

The description discloses that the tool 'resolves recipients and executes', which implies side effects (sending messages). With no annotations provided, this is useful but minimal. It doesn't mention irreversibility, rate limits, or that it may send real messages to real recipients.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes the key behavioral note about resolving recipients and executing. 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?

For a single-parameter action tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It doesn't mention that this is a real-world send action with potential cost/impact, nor does it reference how to obtain campaignId. Given the tool's side-effect nature, more context would help.

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 compensate. It explains that campaignId refers to an existing saved campaign, which adds some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify the format or where to find the ID (e.g., via list_campaigns).

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 ('Run') and resource ('an existing (saved) campaign by id'), and clarifies that it resolves recipients and executes. It distinguishes from create/update/test/list campaign siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 the tool is for executing a saved campaign immediately, which is a clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like test_campaign or send_campaign_from_excel.

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