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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false) by disclosing non-obvious traits: it does not retroactively answer comments left while paused, the action is reversible via campaigns_pause, and it consumes a plan-limited live-campaign slot, causing a refusal that names the plan and number. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layered with the important caveats (no retroactive replies, reversibility, slot-limit refusal) in a logical order. Each sentence earns its place, though the final clause is slightly dense with instructions about relaying the refusal message.

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 single-parameter resume tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, its limits, reversibility, and the failure mode and expected response. Nothing an agent needs to call or handle errors correctly is missing.

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 the single campaignId parameter is documented in the schema; the description adds no additional meaning about the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

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+resource ('Switches a paused campaign back on') and clarifies the ongoing scope ('answers comments again from now on'). It explicitly names the sibling campaigns_pause as the reversible counterpart, letting an agent distinguish the pair without opening schemas.

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 makes clear this is for resuming a paused campaign and names the alternative (campaigns_pause) for the inverse action. It also flags the plan-slot condition under which the call will be refused, though it stops short of a fully explicit when-not statement.

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