preview_campaign_message

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses concrete behavior: no drafts created, no lead reserved, no message sent, inclusion of pause/opt-out/prior-reservation reasons, snapshot semantics, and that no browser or LLM is invoked. This is unusually rich disclosure of side effects and cost characteristics.

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?

Front-loads the key differentiator (no drafts/reserve/send) in the first sentence, then adds only useful qualifications in three short clauses. No filler sentences.

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 values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description adds strong behavioral context; the only gap is parameter-level meaning, which is largely mitigated by self-explanatory parameter names.

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 carries the burden for three required parameters (account, campaign_id, lead_id); it never explains their meaning, format, or how eligibility is keyed to them. The names are fairly self-evident, but the description adds no semantic value over the schema.

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 (preview) and resource (one campaign member's personalized message plus local eligibility), and explicitly scopes it to a single member rather than a batch. This clearly differentiates it from batch siblings like prepare_campaign_messages and prepare_outreach.

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 'without creating drafts, reserving a lead, or sending' clause tells the agent what this tool will NOT do, implicitly routing side-effecting workflows to preparation/approval tools. It also notes that eligibility is a snapshot rechecked later. However, it never names a specific sibling alternative for the mutating path, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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