ghl_email_schedule_campaign

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the status constraint, but does not elaborate on the effects of different schedule types (immediate, scheduled, batch, etc.) or potential error conditions. With annotations already providing safety signals, the description adds modest behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded with the action. It includes essential information (status constraint, endpoint, OAuth scopes) in minimal text. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description lacks high-level context about the tool's complexity. It does not mention the variety of schedule types (immediate, scheduled, batch, rss, smart_send), A/B testing, or recipient configuration. The endpoint and scope are included, but important nuances like prerequisites (valid locationId, campaignId) and return values (no output schema) are missing. The description is too minimal for a tool with many nested options.

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 100%, so every parameter and nested property is documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the endpoint reference. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate for high coverage.

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 verb 'Schedule or start' and the resource 'email campaign'. It specifies the campaign must be in draft, cancelled, or paused status, differentiating it from create/update/delete/list siblings like ghl_email_create_campaign and ghl_email_update_campaign.

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 a clear usage constraint: the campaign must be in specific statuses. It includes OAuth scopes (emails/campaigns.write) indicating required permissions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like ghl_email_create_campaign or ghl_email_update_campaign, nor what happens if the campaign is already scheduled.

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