send_campaign_test

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation (sending an email) but does not disclose side effects such as whether it affects campaign statistics, consumes credits, requires specific permissions, or if the test email is logged. The behavioral impact is underspecified.

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?

Single sentence of 17 words, concise and front-loaded. No unnecessary words. However, it is so brief that it misses important details, which slightly reduces conciseness value.

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 simple tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the test email's content, prerequisites (e.g., campaign must exist and be editable), and expected outcome. Without this, the agent may not know if the tool succeeded or what to do with the result.

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 100% with adequate descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already 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?

Clearly states the tool sends a test email for an existing campaign to preview appearance. The verb 'Send' and resource 'campaign' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'send_broadcast' which sends to actual recipients. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other test/preview tools like 'pre_send_review'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate or when to avoid it. For instance, it doesn't mention that the campaign must be in draft mode or that this is for internal testing before scheduling a broadcast.

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