cm_send_campaign

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

The description does not expand on behavioral traits beyond the annotations. The destructiveHint annotation already signals potential destructive effects. The description adds the scheduling behavior but does not disclose side effects (e.g., campaign status changes, email delivery), which would be useful given the destructive nature.

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 concise, with two sentences and a warning emoji. It front-loads the core purpose and then explains the critical parameter. There is no wasted text, though the emoji might be unnecessary for an AI agent.

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?

The description adequately covers the main action and parameter format but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the campaign must be a draft) or the return behavior (no output schema). For a destructive send action, missing such context reduces completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already describes all three parameters. The description adds value by specifying the exact date format ('YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM') and clarifying the special value 'Immediately' for the SendDate parameter. This goes beyond the schema description, justifying a score above baseline.

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 that the tool sends a draft campaign, either immediately or on a schedule. It uses a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('draft campaign'). While it distinguishes from siblings like cm_unschedule_campaign, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like cm_send_campaign_preview.

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 implies usage for sending a draft campaign with a SendDate choice. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., if the campaign is already sent) or alternatives (e.g., cm_unschedule_campaign for unscheduling). The 'immediately or schedule' clause is clear but incomplete.

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