sendcraft_send_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions immediate vs scheduled sending, but omits critical traits such as the irreversibility of sending, any state changes to the campaign (e.g., marked as sent), or prerequisites beyond 'draft' status. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like action.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the verb, resource, and two modes with zero wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It correctly identifies the target resource and scheduling option, but misses behavioral caveats (e.g., draft requirement, sending irreversibility) that would make it fully complete for an agent without additional context. Slightly below the ideal for a send operation.

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 both parameters. The description adds 'existing draft campaign' and 'immediately or schedule' but essentially restates the schema's 'Campaign ID to send' and 'ISO 8601 datetime to schedule' without adding deeper meaning. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('existing draft campaign'), and clearly states two modes: immediate send or schedule for future time. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sendcraft_send_email (emails vs campaigns) and sendcraft_create_campaign (creation vs sending).

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have an existing draft campaign to send. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'existing draft campaign' wording and the two modes provide clear context for the primary use case.

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