campaigns_start_onboarding

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source for behavioral disclosure. It states only that onboarding is started, without indicating whether the operation is asynchronous, what side effects occur, or what system state changes, which is minimal for a process-initiating 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 sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise. However, it borders on under-specification, sacrificing clarity for brevity, though it still earns a high score for structure.

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?

The description covers only the immediate action and lacks context about the onboarding workflow, expected outcomes, and how it fits with sibling tools. Given the tool's complexity and the existence of related onboarding operations, the description is not complete enough for confident 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 parameters are already well-documented. The tool description adds no additional semantic information about parameters such as encryption or instance ID, making the description no more helpful than the schema alone.

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 ('start') and resource ('instance onboarding for outbound campaigns'), making the core purpose clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like campaigns_start, which likely starts a campaign itself. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related onboarding tools such as campaigns_get_onboarding_status.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when onboarding is needed, or relationship to other campaign lifecycle tools, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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