Create campaign draft

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

Annotations flag it as a non-readonly, non-idempotent, open-world write, and the description adds real context beyond that: creation only produces a draft and no email goes out until a separate status change. It doesn't mention required permissions or whether a campaign id is returned, but the draft/deferred-send semantics are a meaningful addition over the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the create-a-draft purpose followed by the sending constraint. No 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?

For a 10-parameter mutation tool with 20% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits parameter guidance and doesn't state what comes back (e.g., a campaign id) or permission requirements, though the draft/send-deferral framing covers the most important behavioral risk.

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 only 20% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it names no parameters at all. The nuances of body/template_id, list_ids, content_type, and send_at scheduling are left entirely to the under-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?

States a specific verb and resource (create a campaign) plus the resulting state (draft), and distinguishes itself from campaign_set_status, which handles sending. An agent can tell exactly what this does versus the status-mutating sibling.

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?

Explains the key selection condition: use this to build a draft, nothing is sent until campaign_set_status runs it. That clear routing to the send sibling is strong, though it doesn't address when to use campaign_create vs campaign_update for an existing campaign.

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