campaigns_put_outbound_requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Add contacts' but does not explain whether duplicates are handled, whether the operation is idempotent, what the outbound_requests objects must contain, or what response is returned. This is insufficient for a mutating tool.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices essential context, making it less useful than a slightly longer description with key details.

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 two required parameters, an unstructured array parameter, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the outbound_requests schema, validation rules, or side effects, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid request confidently.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description does not compensate. It explains the high-level intent ('contacts') but does not clarify `campaign_id` type/format or the structure and required fields of `outbound_requests`, which is an array of arbitrary objects.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('contacts to dial list'), clearly indicating this tool modifies a campaign's contact list. While it lacks the term 'campaign', the parameter `campaign_id` and sibling naming make the purpose understandable and distinct from other campaigns_* tools.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as which campaign types it applies to or prerequisites like needing a started campaign. The description implies use for adding contacts to a dialing list, but does not state exclusions or use cases.

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