create_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses response behavior (compact confirmation by default, verbose=true for full response) and the return of a campaign ID. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects beyond creating a resource, or the fact that sending is separate, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the return value and a key option. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or filler.

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 covers the workflow context (creates an initial campaign, returns ID for next steps) and the default response behavior, which is critical given no output schema. It does not explain every parameter, but the schema already does. A small gap is not explicitly stating that this only creates a draft and does not send, but the flow reference to send/schedule makes it implicit.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minor clarification about the verbose flag (already in schema) and mentions the campaign ID return, but does not provide additional parameter meaning beyond what schema properties already offer.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new email campaign.' It also distinguishes from siblings by stating it returns a campaign ID for use with update_campaign_content and send/schedule, clarifying the tool's role in the campaign creation flow.

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 when to use this tool by referencing the campaign ID for subsequent update/send steps, but does not explicitly state exclusions like 'use update_campaign_content for existing campaigns.' Context is clear enough for selection, but no explicit alternatives are named.

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