Test campaign

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

Annotations declare a non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent mutation; the description adds the key behavioral nuance that it 'reaches one mailbox, not the audience' and returns a confirmation. It does not spell out the cost of repeated calls (each call sends another real email) or any rate limit, so it falls just short of fully exploiting the annotation 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?

Four bolded, labeled lines that are front-loaded with purpose and alternative, with no redundant prose. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description states what is returned (a confirmation that the test was sent), and annotations already carry the safety/mutation profile. The scope constraint (one mailbox vs. audience) covers the main risk an agent needs to know before invoking it.

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 coverage is 50% – the 'email' parameter is documented in the schema, while 'id' is bare. The description implicitly identifies 'id' as the campaign to test ('one copy of a campaign') and adds the nuance that 'email' is a project member's mailbox, partially compensating but not fully resolving the undocumented parameter.

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 ('Send one copy of a campaign to a project member') plus the purpose of the action (checking the rendered result). It also names the sibling it is not (plunk_send_campaign) and explains the difference in audience scope, so an agent can distinguish them without opening schemas.

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 covers when to use it ('Always, before plunk_send_campaign, when nobody has seen the rendered email yet') and when not ('The real send, which is plunk_send_campaign'), naming the alternative directly. No inference required.

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