send_to_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states the auth requirement ('Leads must belong to the authenticated user') but doesn't disclose what happens on partial failure, whether the operation is additive to existing list members, idempotency behavior, or the bulk action's side effects on the campaign beyond adding contacts.

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, efficient phrasing, no filler. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second adds the key constraint. Could arguably be a single point higher except the structure is flat (both sentences at same level without progressive detail).

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 bulk-import mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably adequate but leaves gaps: it doesn't describe the return response, partial-failure semantics, or whether the operation replaces or appends. Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, list default behavior), it's minimally complete but not thorough.

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 all three parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds the auth constraint context but doesn't elaborate on the 1-500 count constraint or the listId default behavior beyond what the schema states. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states a specific verb+resource ('Bulk-import selected lead IDs into a campaign's contact list') that clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_leads, create_lead_list, and sync_lead_list. The action (import into campaign) is unambiguous.

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 usage context but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like create_lead_list or sync_lead_list. It notes a constraint ('Leads must belong to the authenticated user') which provides some usage guidance, but there are no exclusions or comparison to sibling tools.

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