Send ad-hoc campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and covers key traits: the campaign is not persisted, opt-out is active for every org, and the response exposes optOut and consent. It does not detail irreversibility of sends, rate limits, or authorization requirements, but it adds substantial behavioral context beyond a simple action statement.

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, front-loads the primary purpose, and each clause adds useful content: audience, message, and compliance behavior. The compliance sentence is dense but informative, so the length is justified.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description gives the essential calling pattern but leaves gaps: it never explains how fromNumberId is used, what the full response contains, or exact constraints on nested filters/excelRecipients. It is adequate for a first call but not fully complete.

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 coverage is only 56%, but the description explains the two valid message configurations (Template+templateId vs regular+message) and the three audience alternatives, which is non-obvious from required=messageType alone. It does not clarify all remaining parameters such as fromNumberId or the exact shape of filters, but it compensates for the main ambiguity.

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 specific action and resource: run an ad-hoc campaign without saving it. It names the audience and message options, which makes the tool's scope clear, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like gambot_run_campaign or gambot_send_campaign_from_excel.

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?

It clearly states when to use the tool: send a campaign immediately without a saved draft, and it tells the caller what inputs they are expected to supply (audience plus message). It gives context but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool names.

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