Create a draft campaign

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

Annotations only provide generic readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the campaign is created as a draft, nothing is sent, no contact is touched, and it has no audience yet. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the side effects of the call.

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 short paragraphs are front-loaded with the core action and followed by relevant exclusions. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 create-draft tool, the description, schema, and annotations together cover what the agent needs: profile context, draft behavior, what fields are not involved, and the non-destructive nature. No output schema exists, but this is a straightforward creation call and the absence of return-value details is not a serious gap.

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 baseline is 3 and the description does not need to restate parameter meanings. It adds no per-parameter detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable because the schema already fully documents each field.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a campaign in a profile' and immediately clarifies that it creates a draft, distinguishing it from campaign-read, campaign-update, and other reach creation tools. The title and tool name are reinforced with meaningful scope rather than merely repeated.

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?

Explicitly says targeting and scheduling are not part of this request and that the draft is finished and sent from the Reach interface. This tells the agent this tool only stages a draft, not a send-ready campaign. It does not name a sibling alternative, but the exclusions are clear enough for the given tool family.

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