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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, destructive, and idempotent, so the safety profile is structured. The description adds that every value is re-checked before writing, a validation behavior not captured by annotations, though it stops short of noting it's irreversible or it returns confirmation.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it does, how to pass input, and the re-check behavior. Front-loaded and free of filler.

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 two-param mutation tied to a planner, the description covers the workflow, input contract, and validation, with annotations covering the destructive/idempotent profile and schema covering params. It would be closer to complete with a note on expected result or failure handling.

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 100% and both params are documented (changes must be the unmodified array from plan_campaign_change; workspaceId points to get_status). The description reinforces this ('exactly as they came') but adds no new parameter meaning beyond 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?

States a specific verb (makes/applies changes) tied to the sibling plan_campaign_change, so the agent knows this commits a plan. It doesn't fully spell out that it mutates campaign config, but names the paired planner, which is the key disambiguation.

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?

Clearly implies use-after-plan and instructs passing the changes back exactly as returned. It lacks explicit when-not guidance (e.g., don't hand-craft changes), but the workflow relationship to plan_campaign_change is unmistakable.

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