Launch or resume a cold email campaign by running required launch checks first; if any required item fails, it refuses, then sends within the schedule window.
Launch or resume a campaign Runs the launch checklist first and refuses when a required item fails. The worker then sends inside the schedule window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses a precondition (launch checklist runs first), a failure mode (refuses when a required item fails), and a timing constraint (sends inside the schedule window). It still omits permissions/auth requirements and whether the tool is idempotent or reversible.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then preconditions and timing. Every sentence adds distinct information with no padding.
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?
Behavioral context is strong for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, but the definition is silent on the required 'id' argument (format, meaning) and on what the caller gets back. Adequate but with clear gaps for a launch action.
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% for the single required 'id' parameter, and the description never explains it. The agent must guess whether it is a campaign ID, what format it takes, or what happens with an invalid ID, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Launch or resume a campaign') and even captures the dual semantics (first launch vs. resume) that separates it from create_campaign and pause_campaign. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
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 dual launch/resume semantics and the checklist precondition imply when to call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like pause_campaign, preview_campaign, or get_launch_checklist. Usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.