add_leads_to_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the maximum lead limit (100 per request), which is useful operational context, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a mutating operation (implied but not stated), what permissions are required, how duplicates are handled, whether leads are validated, or what happens on partial failures. For a write operation with complex parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that communicates the core purpose and a key operational constraint. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy. The information is front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 mutating tool with 3 parameters (including complex nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, side effects, or important behavioral constraints beyond the lead limit. The agent would need to guess about success/failure responses, validation rules, and integration consequences.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it implies the 'lead_list' parameter accepts leads and mentions the 100-item limit, but doesn't explain the semantics of 'settings' parameters or clarify required fields beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high 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 leads') and target resource ('to a campaign'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_campaign' or 'delete_lead_from_campaign' by focusing on adding leads to existing campaigns. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'list_campaign_leads' or 'unsubscribe_lead_from_campaign' beyond the verb choice.

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 usage when needing to add leads to an existing campaign, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'create_campaign' (for new campaigns) or 'update_campaign_settings' (for modifying campaigns). The maximum lead limit (100) offers some operational constraint, but doesn't address strategic selection among sibling tools.

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