sendcraft_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. It discloses that the campaign is not sent automatically, which is key, but it omits other important behaviors such as persistence, idempotency, validation, or what the return value is. This is a minimum viable disclosure.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second provides a necessary workflow pointer. Every word 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?

For a creation tool with a rich schema, the description covers the essential create-then-send workflow and distinguishes from related tools. However, it lacks any mention of what happens on success (e.g., returned campaign ID) or error/failure behavior, which would improve completeness given there is no output schema.

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 parameters are already well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics or usage hints, so the 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 begins with 'Create a new email marketing campaign,' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling send tools by noting that after creation, one must call sendcraft_send_campaign to send it, establishing a two-step 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?

The description explicitly instructs to call sendcraft_send_campaign after creation, giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives like sendcraft_send_email for one-off sends, though the workflow implication is sufficient.

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