create_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says the campaign is 'durable' and that an owner membership is created. It does not explain side effects, persistence semantics, token requirements, sharing policy consequences, or what happens to the caller after creation. This is too thin for a mutating tool with no annotation safety signals.

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 and not bloated, but it is so terse that it sacrifices useful content. It is front-loaded with the core action, yet the wording is cryptic ('owner membership capability') and does not earn its place as a complete orientation. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 four parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a low schema description coverage, the description is far too incomplete. It does not explain how to use the parameters, what the return value is, what ownership means, or how this relates to the many campaign/thread/member sibling tools. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly without additional external knowledge.

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 only 25%, so the description should compensate by explaining non-obvious parameters like binding_token and default_sharing_policy, but it does not mention any parameters at all. The schema itself documents only binding_token, leaving name, description, and default_sharing_policy semantics largely unexplained. The description adds no parameter-level value.

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 names a specific action ('Create') and a concrete resource ('durable coordination campaign'), and adds that it creates 'owner membership capability.' This is more than a tautology and gives an agent a basic idea of what the tool does. However, the phrase 'owner membership capability' is imprecise, and the description doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling creation tools like create_thread or start_workflow.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus join_campaign, invite_member, or other campaign-related tools. The description does not state what scenarios call for creating a campaign, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and context.

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