Test campaign (single recipient)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'TEST', 'single-recipient', and 'previewing' disclose that this is a scoped, non-broadcast action, but it does not clarify side effects such as whether a real message is delivered, whether a campaign record is created, or how results are returned.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by the usage context. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description is sufficient for tool selection and basic invocation, and the schema documents several parameters well. But with no output schema and no annotations, important context is missing: what the tool returns, whether the test message is actually sent, and whether the operation has side effects beyond the single recipient.

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 description adds useful high-level meaning by indicating that either a template or a free-text message can be sent, which guides the use of templateId vs message. However, schema coverage is only 57%, and the description does not compensate for undocumented parameters like fromNumberId or clarify the messageType behavior further.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('single-recipient TEST of a template or free-text message'), and clearly scopes the operation as a preview rather than a full broadcast. This differentiates it from siblings like gambot_send_template and gambot_send_campaign even without naming 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?

It explicitly identifies the intended context: 'Great for previewing before a full broadcast.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not state exclusions or explicitly name alternative tools.

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