conduyt_create_drip_campaign

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. It never says whether the new campaign is active or paused, what permissions or channel setup are required, whether stepDelays must align in length with totalSteps, or what the response returns. Naming the three config areas is the only behavioral hint.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler; the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient but so short that it omits operational detail, so not a 5.

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?

For a 13-parameter creation tool with four required fields, no annotations and no output schema, the description omits validation rules, post-creation state, and return value. An agent could not safely call this without reading the whole schema and guessing at semantics.

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 all 13 parameters are already documented with units (seconds, 0-23 hours, 0-50 batch size). The description's mention of step delays, send windows and provider configuration mirrors those schema entries without adding constraints or relationships, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Create a new drip campaign") plus the categories of configuration it accepts, which separates it from list/get/update drip campaign siblings. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with conduyt_update_drip_campaign or conduyt_create_sequence.

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 statement of when to create a campaign versus a sequence or automation, no prerequisites (e.g. needing a provider or SMS provider UUID first), and no note on whether the campaign is created as a draft or starts sending. The agent is left to infer everything about timing from the name.

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