campaigns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lists operations but doesn't explain permissions needed, whether operations are destructive (like delete), rate limits, response formats, or error conditions. For a multi-operation tool with potential destructive actions, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that lists key operations. It's appropriately sized for a multi-function tool, though it could be more front-loaded with the core purpose before listing operations. No wasted words, but could benefit from better structural separation of concepts.

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 complex tool with 7 parameters, multiple operation types (including destructive ones like delete), and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, authentication requirements, or how different operations interact. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without trial and error.

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 the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enums. The description mentions 'create, update, send, schedule campaigns' which aligns with operation enum values but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose as 'Email and SMS campaign management' with specific verbs (create, update, send, schedule) and resources (campaigns). It distinguishes between email and SMS types, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'email' or 'sms' which might handle individual messages rather than campaigns.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'email' or 'sms', nor does it specify prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions for campaign operations versus other messaging approaches.

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