create_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a crucial side effect: 'Nothing here goes live, and nothing here is visible to the public,' which tells the agent that creating a campaign is a safe, private bookkeeping action. It does not mention permissions or idempotency, but the most important consequence is covered.

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 tightly structured: a one-line summary, an Args list, and a single clarifying sentence about campaign behavior. Every line earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler prose.

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 straightforward creation tool with an output schema present, the description covers the purpose, all parameters, and the key non-public nature of campaigns. It does not explicitly discuss permissions or alternate approaches, but an agent has enough to call this tool correctly. A small gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance among the many sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It explains that 'name' is the only HubSpot requirement, gives exact date formats for start_date and end_date, clarifies goal as free text, and describes properties as 'any further hs_* properties.' This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a campaign.' It then clarifies that a campaign is a 'planning container' and contrasts it with public/live content, which distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_blog_post_draft or create_landing_page_draft. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 gives clear contextual guidance by stating that campaigns never go live and are never visible to the public, so an agent can infer this is for internal planning rather than publishing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the context is strong enough to steer selection away from content creation siblings.

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