broadcastCampaignToList

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the action as triggering campaigns but fails to mention mutation, rate limits, idempotency details (despite the idempotencyKey parameter), or the behavior of personalization parameters. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand all side effects.

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 a single sentence but includes redundant phrasing ('using a single API request' is implied by 'broadcast'). It is not optimally concise and lacks a title. It could be restructured to front-load key information.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not cover return values, errors, prerequisites (e.g., campaign must exist), or the full scope of behavior. The schema covers parameters well, but the description fails to provide broader context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only provides a high-level overview. The schema already explains each parameter, including the idempotencyKey and campaign_data object.

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 triggers campaigns to the entire contact list using a single API request. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sendEmailToCampaign, though the mention of 'entire contact list' slightly conflicts with the possibility of using a segment via listId.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'single API request' but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, nor does it reference sibling tools or contexts.

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