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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. However, the description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the word 'running' — it does not say what happens to in-flight jobs, whether stopping is immediate, or whether the campaign can be resumed afterward.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words, and the key action is front-loaded. However, for a destructive lifecycle operation, it is arguably too terse to be fully useful, and it provides no structure beyond the bare statement.

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 tool is simple — one required parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema — so the description does not need to explain return values. Still, it omits useful context such as the effect of aborting a running campaign or the expected state afterward, leaving the agent to rely entirely on annotations and schema.

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?

There is only one parameter, and the input schema describes it fully as the job id returned by start_campaign. The description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate for complete schema coverage with no extra description-level guidance.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Stop a running campaign.' This clearly identifies the action and the target resource, and the word 'running' narrows the scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like check_campaign or start_campaign, but the purpose is immediately clear.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'running campaign' implies it applies only to active campaigns, but the description never says when not to use it, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to sibling tools such as check_campaign or start_campaign.

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