Create a campaign

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: required OAuth scope, the redacted data-sensitivity tier, the idempotency-key requirement (and that the server auto-generates one if omitted), and the default-workspace override behavior.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence and the metadata block (operation, scopes, idempotency, workspace) is compact and scannable. The mixed prose/metadata layout is slightly uneven but wastes little space.

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 mutation with a nested graph body and an output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to invoke it: draft semantics, required body field, auth scopes, idempotency handling, and workspace targeting. It does not explain the nested graph/qualification structure at all, which is the only notable gap given the deep nesting.

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 75%, with workspaceId, workspaceSlug, and idempotencyKey already documented in the schema itself. The description largely repeats those (idempotency, workspace override) and only adds the body hint that name is required and graph optional, so marginal value over structured data is limited.

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?

"Create a campaign draft" gives a specific verb+resource and adds the important qualifier that the result is a draft (not a published campaign), which separates it from luca_campaigns_publish. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as luca_campaigns_generate, luca_campaigns_duplicate, or luca_campaigns_draft_update, so routing still requires inference.

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 supplies operational preconditions (required scope campaigns:write, Idempotency-Key, workspace override) but never states when to choose this tool over the sibling generate/duplicate/create-from-template paths. Usage is implied by the name rather than explained.

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