send_campaign

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent, and the description adds crucial context beyond them: it emails real subscribers, cannot be undone, returns as soon as sending starts, and continues delivery in the background. It even points to get_campaign for progress, which is exactly the operational detail an agent needs before invoking a destructive send.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and its risk. Every sentence adds a distinct operational fact: what it does, that it is irreversible, how it returns, and when to use the alternative.

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 one-parameter destructive send tool with no output schema, the description covers action, irreversible side effect, async return behavior, monitoring path, precondition, and alternative. Nothing needed to call it safely is missing.

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% for the single campaign_id parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description implies the campaign defines the target lists but adds no syntax or format detail beyond that. 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Start sending a campaign') and immediately clarifies the mechanism ('by setting its status to running'). It is unmistakable next to siblings such as schedule_campaign and get_campaign_preview.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent: check get_campaign_preview first, and use schedule_campaign to send later. Both the prerequisite and the alternative path are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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