ghl_email_create_campaign

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (write operation), destructiveHint=false (not destructive), and idempotentHint=false (not idempotent). The description adds the specific endpoint and OAuth scopes, which are helpful but do not disclose additional behavioral traits such as what the created campaign state is (draft? published?), or whether it can be used immediately.

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 short (three lines) and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes useful endpoint and OAuth scope details but lacks a structured breakdown. No unnecessary information, but it could be slightly more organized.

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?

The description omits crucial context for a creation tool: it does not explain what the response will be (e.g., created campaign ID), how this campaign fits into the lifecycle (e.g., it must be edited or scheduled via other tools), or any implications of the nested body structure. Given the complexity (nested object with 8 sub-fields) and no output schema, the description is insufficiently 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?

Input schema has 100% field description coverage, meeting the high-coverage baseline. The tool description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. With baseline at 3, no extra value is contributed.

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 'Create a new email campaign', using a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('email campaign'). The name includes 'create_campaign', and sibling tools like ghl_email_delete_campaign, ghl_email_update_campaign, etc., further distinguish this creation action. No ambiguity exists.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from other email campaign operations (e.g., update, schedule). The agent receives no decision-making context.

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