Run the comment automation suite

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the required scopes (campaigns:write, luca:queue_ops), the Idempotency-Key requirement and server-side key generation, and workspace override behavior. It does not describe what the run does to campaign state or what a failed run means, which keeps it short of a 5. The retry-safety note is consistent with idempotentHint=false, since the tool is only safe to retry when a stable key is supplied.

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?

Front-loads purpose and the pre-publish gate in the first two sentences, then packs operational metadata (endpoint, scopes, idempotency, workspace) into tight lines. Slightly list-like but every line carries actionable information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the prerequisite, auth scopes, idempotency, and workspace targeting. The remaining gap is the unexplained autoSend body field and any statement about failure/blocking consequences.

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 60%. The description usefully explains idempotencyKey, workspaceId, and workspaceSlug, and the campaign id is implied by context. However, body.autoSend is undocumented in both the schema and the description, so one parameter's behavior remains opaque.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run the Instagram comment-to-DM simulation suite against a campaign') and names the sibling it gates ('publish'), so an agent can separate it from luca_campaigns_simulations_create and luca_campaigns_publish without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule and the condition that selects it: campaigns using comment automation must pass this before publishing, so run it before reaching for publish. The alternative (publish) is named and the prerequisite ordering is spelled out.

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