add_campaign_email_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Add' which implies a mutation, but doesn't specify if this requires special permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate accounts, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information, making it highly efficient and easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, potential side effects, error conditions, or how it interacts with other tools like 'list_campaign_email_accounts'. Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('campaign_id' and 'email_account_ids') adequately. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about these parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for good schema coverage.

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 action ('Add') and resources ('email accounts to a campaign'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'remove_campaign_email_accounts' by specifying addition rather than removal, though it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from tools like 'create_email_account' or 'update_campaign_settings'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used instead of 'create_email_account' for existing accounts, or whether there are prerequisites like the campaign needing to be active. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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