thincms_create_campaign

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

The description discloses that the tool stores email content but does not deliver, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention important details like the confirmProductionWrite flag or the deprecation of scheduledAt, but given the schema covers these, the description provides adequate core transparency. Without annotations, the description holds the burden and does well.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then distinguishes from the sibling, and gives a clear usage hint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what it does NOT do, and the appropriate next step. It lacks mention of the confirmProductionWrite requirement or return value, but these are partially covered in the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for its role.

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 100%, with all parameters already well-documented in the schema. The description adds overarching context (store vs. send) but does not elaborate on individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Hence baseline score 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?

The description clearly states it creates a campaign record in ThinCMS and explicitly distinguishes it from sending the campaign to the mail platform, which is done by the sibling tool thincms_send_campaign. The verb 'create' plus the resource 'campaign record' makes the purpose 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (first step to store content) and when not to use it (does not push to mail platform). It directly names the alternative second step tool (thincms_send_campaign), which helps the agent decide the correct sequence.

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