preflight_instantly_campaign

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: every request is checked against a read-only allowlist, and the API key is sourced from INSTANTLY_API_KEY rather than a tool argument. This discloses operational safeguards and security details beyond the annotations, enhancing the agent's understanding of constraints.

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 at three sentences, with purpose front-loaded ('READ-ONLY. Inspect...'). However, there is slight redundancy: 'READ-ONLY' is repeated in the allowlist explanation. Despite this, the structure is efficient and each sentence adds relevant information—purpose, scope, and security mechanism.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should explain what the readiness report contains, but it only says 'readiness report' without detailing its format or contents. It does mention the data sources (leads, accounts, block list) but not the report's structure. Given the absence of output schema, this is a notable gap. The description covers the operational context well (read-only, API key), but the return value remains underspecified.

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 75% (campaign_id, config_path, max_samples have descriptions; lead_limit has only min/max). The tool description does not elaborate on any parameter semantics. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The lack of compensation for the undocumented lead_limit is a minor gap, but overall the schema carries most of the parameter information.

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 the tool's action and target: 'Inspect a live Instantly campaign and return its readiness report.' This is a specific verb-resource combination and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools (preflight_demo, preflight_files, list_preflight_rules, etc.) by the 'live Instantly campaign' scope. The mention of reading leads, sending accounts, and block list further clarifies the exact domain.

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 explains the scenario (inspecting a live campaign) and the read-only nature, but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. It provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate (live campaign inspection) without listing excluded cases or directing to other preflight tools.

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