Create a draft cold email campaign with one empty email, then use set_sequence to write emails and add leads and mailboxes.
Create a draft campaign Starts with one empty email. Use set_sequence to write the emails, then add leads and mailboxes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Untitled campaign |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a critical initial constraint ('Starts with one empty email'), which is vital behavioral context that goes beyond simply setting the campaign name.
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 concise and efficient, front-loading the action and immediately providing necessary context regarding the campaign's initial state and subsequent workflow.
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?
Given the minimal input structure (one parameter), the description provides high value by detailing the campaign's starting state and mapping out the entire setup workflow, making it largely complete.
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?
Despite the input schema being minimal, the description adds no semantic value to the parameters. It focuses entirely on the post-creation workflow and behavior, failing to compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.
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 tool clearly states its purpose: creating a draft campaign. It is highly contextual, establishing a specific starting state ('Starts with one empty email'), which helps distinguish it from a generic campaign creation utility.
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 excels in guiding the agent's subsequent actions. It explicitly tells the user the required next steps: 'Use set_sequence to write the emails, then add leads and mailboxes,' effectively defining the usage workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.