send_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the prerequisite (content must be set), the immediate side effect of sending, and the return behavior (compact by default, full with verbose). This gives the agent a clear picture of what to expect.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, the second adds a prerequisite and return behavior. All information is front-loaded and purpose-driven.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: action, prerequisite, and response type. It does not fail to mention anything critical, though it could hint at error behavior if content is missing. Overall, it is complete enough for safe invocation.

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 covers both parameters. The description repeats the verbose behavior ('compact confirmation', 'verbose=true') rather than adding new meaning, so it does not exceed the baseline for well-documented 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Send a campaign immediately.' The verb 'send' and resource 'campaign' are specific, and the word 'immediately' distinguishes it from sibling `schedule_campaign`. It also mentions the prerequisite of setting content, reinforcing its distinct role.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Send a campaign immediately' indicates immediate action, and 'must have content set first via update_campaign_content' gives a specific prerequisite and names an alternative tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with `schedule_campaign`, leaving some room for interpretation.

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