Request a managed service campaign

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

The description discloses the workflow shape beyond the annotations: the request goes to an account manager and the team follows up by email to agree, so no campaign is launched immediately. However it never addresses the destructiveHint=true / idempotentHint=false annotations, and an agent could read 'asks their account manager' as a harmless note, so the risk profile is left unresolved.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the usage trigger and wastes no space. The phrasing 'asks their account manager for it' is slightly oblique but still compact.

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 six-required-parameter mutation with a constrained budget object and no output schema, the description omits what the call produces, what status the request starts in, how to follow up (get/list_managed_service_campaigns), and the minimum-budget rule beyond what the schema states. It covers the intent but not enough of the operational picture.

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?

With 7 parameters at 57% schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it mentions none of them. It adds no meaning for goal, duration, additionalInfo, or the nested estimatedBudget, all of which are left entirely to the 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?

Names a specific verb-plus-resource ('request a managed service campaign') and frames it from the user's situation, which separates it from read-side siblings such as growwer_get_managed_service_campaign and growwer_list_managed_service_campaigns. It does not call out any sibling by name, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

'Use this when a user with a managed service wants Growwer's team to run a new campaign' is a clear triggering condition an agent can match against a user request. It lacks explicit exclusions or a pointer to prerequisites such as growwer_estimate_managed_service_proposals or the info/proposal review tools.

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