thincms_send_campaign

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries full burden. It fully discloses behavioral traits: the tool accepts the send request asynchronously, actual delivery is async; scheduling behavior for immediate vs future timestamps; the lock on schedule after first send; the need for confirmProductionWrite for production sites; and the error scenario (409). This is comprehensive.

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 concise but thorough, consisting of two well-structured paragraphs. The first sentence clearly states the purpose. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 tool's complexity (asynchronous sending, scheduling, production safety), the description covers all critical aspects: what it does, how scheduling works, the lock constraint, the async nature and monitoring via thincms_campaign_stats, and the production write acknowledgment. No output schema exists, but the return behavior is described. This is sufficient for an AI agent to use correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains the interaction between scheduledFor and the legacy scheduledAt, the meaning of 'immediate' vs future timestamp, the schedule locking behavior, and the context for confirmProductionWrite. This extra context elevates the score to 4.

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 the tool's action: 'Push the campaign to the connected mail platform and request delivery.' It uses a specific verb ('push') and resource ('campaign'), and distinguishes it from related tools like thincms_create_campaign or thincms_update_campaign by focusing on the sending action.

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: to send a campaign with optional scheduling. It also explains constraints: the platform locks the schedule after first send, so rescheduling requires delete/recreate, and a /send against an already-queued campaign returns 409. It mentions async delivery and the need to check thincms_campaign_stats. However, it doesn't explicitly tell when not to use it (e.g., if just creating or updating a campaign).

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