Create a marketing campaign

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints (readOnly=false etc.), so the description carries the burden. It discloses validation, deduplication, and return of campaign+stats, but lacks details on idempotency, destructive potential, or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. First sentence immediately states purpose and key resources, second adds behavioral detail. Every word earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should explain return shape. It says 'Returns the campaign + stats', which is minimal. For a 6-param creation tool, additional detail on response structure or side effects would improve completeness.

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 33% (only batchSize described), and the description only clarifies 'recipients' (validated/deduplicated) and 'batchSize'. Required params like 'project', 'name', and optional 'body', 'subject' are not explained, leaving gaps.

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 clearly states the tool creates a campaign with a recipient list and batch size, and explicitly distinguishes what it does (tracks campaign, computes send batches) vs what it doesn't (actual sending). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'send' or other create tools.

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 implies the tool is for creating campaigns while actual sending is handled separately ('sending is left to the user/a connector'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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