save_campaign_sequences

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 the create/update logic and A/B testing support, but doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like whether this is a destructive operation (overwrites existing sequences), what permissions are required, rate limits, error handling, or what happens when sequences conflict. For a mutation tool with complex nested parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 (two sentences) with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose and create/update logic, while the second adds the A/B testing capability. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the most critical details first.

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 complex mutation tool with 3 parameters (including deeply nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, side effects, or behavioral constraints. While the schema provides parameter documentation, the description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations and output schema, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective usage.

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 what's in the schema - it clarifies the ID parameter's role in create/update decisions and mentions A/B testing, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter relationships, constraints, or usage patterns beyond what's already in the structured schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Create or update email sequences for a campaign') and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on sequence management rather than campaign creation, lead management, or analytics. It explicitly mentions A/B testing support, which is unique among the listed sibling tools.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (create vs. update based on ID presence) and mentions A/B testing capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'create_campaign' for initial campaign setup or 'update_campaign_settings' for other campaign modifications, leaving some sibling differentiation implicit rather than explicit.

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