create_campaign

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations don't carry: writes are local-only, nothing is dispatched, and notes cannot be templated. It does not mention permissions, dedup behavior, or how repeatedly calling it behaves.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the four sentences are compact with little filler. Fragments like "Notes cannot be templated" are terse but still earn their place as a real constraint.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is rightly omitted. For a three-required-parameter mutation with no schema descriptions, though, the definition leaves the 'account' and 'name' inputs and any permission/idempotency implications undefined, which is a meaningful gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain message_template in depth (accepted tokens, the placeholder requirement, the {name} -> @handle fallback). But 'account' and 'name' are left completely unexplained, so the compensation is only partial.

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?

"Create a local draft campaign" gives a specific verb and resource, and the trailing "Nothing sends" makes the scope unambiguous (a draft, not a send). It is distinguishable from send_message and prepare_campaign_messages, but it never explicitly names or routes to a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase "local draft" and "Nothing sends" imply this is the non-dispatching entry point, so usage is inferable. However there is no explicit when-to-use statement or comparison against related tools like prepare_campaign_messages, add_campaign_leads, or set_campaign_status.

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