Convert Campaign Content Format

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds the crucial behavioral fact that nothing is persisted server-side and the caller must write the result back. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious side-effect disclosure the annotations cannot convey. Minor tension: readOnlyHint=false suggests a mutating call, while the description describes a pure transform — but since the server presumably still resolves the campaign by id, this reads as emphasis rather than a hard inconsistency.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The capability statement comes first and the critical non-persistence warning and persistence workaround follow immediately, so the highest-risk misunderstanding is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly notes that the converted body is returned, and it covers the persistence question that a caller would otherwise get wrong. The remaining gap is the unexplained `id` parameter on an otherwise stateless-looking conversion, which leaves the agent guessing about a required argument.

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 75%: `from` and `to` are fully documented enums, but `body` has no description at all and `id` is only 'Numeric id.' The description partially compensates by telling the agent to 'pass the body text explicitly,' but it never explains why a campaign `id` is required for a pure format conversion, which is the single most confusing parameter here.

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 (converts) plus resource (a campaign body) plus the transformation axis (between content formats, e.g. markdown to HTML). The explicit negative clause 'This does NOT read or write the campaign's stored body' cleanly separates it from listmonk_update_campaign and the preview_campaign_* siblings, which an agent could otherwise easily confuse it with.

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?

Gives a clear condition of use (you have body text in hand and want a different format) and names the follow-up path for persistence (listmonk_update_campaign). It does not, however, contrast this with the preview_campaign_text / preview_campaign_draft siblings, which also transform campaign content, so an agent still has to infer which of those to pick.

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