set_sequence

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two most important behavioral facts: the operation replaces the entire step list (destructive scope) and is restricted to draft/paused campaigns (state prerequisite). It omits permissions/auth, reversibility, and rate limits, so it is strong but not complete.

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 destructive scope is front-loaded in the first clause, content-syntax rules follow, and the state restriction closes. Every sentence carries information; there is no filler.

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 destructive, nested-payload mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers replacement semantics, allowed states, and body syntax well. It still leaves the per-step scheduling fields (waitDays, sameThread) and the campaign `id` unexplained, which is a real gap for a tool this structured.

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?

At 0% schema coverage the description must compensate, and it does add rich meaning for the `steps` body content (ordering, 1-5 variants, plain text vs HTML, {{var}}/{{var|fallback}}, spintax, mandatory {{unsubscribe}} in the first email). It says nothing about `id`, and the nested subject/active/weight/waitDays/sameThread fields are undocumented in both description and schema.

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+resource: 'Replace the whole sequence Steps in order, each with 1 to 5 variants,' which makes the full-replacement semantics clear. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling write_sequence, leaving the agent unable to tell the two apart from the description alone.

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?

Provides one real gating condition, 'Only drafts and paused campaigns,' which tells the agent when the tool is legal. It names no alternative and gives no when-not guidance (e.g., versus write_sequence or update_campaign), so the routing decision is only half-supported.

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