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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond a simple 'update' by explaining the freeze semantics for the recipient set and template version after launch, which is valuable state-change information. It does not mention auth, error cases, or response details, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The action list is front-loadedaging, and the important lifecycle constraint follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 gives the key lifecycle logic but omits some context needed for confident invocation: the exact status mapping for pause/resume/cancel, any state-transition validation rules, and the response shape (no output schema). The sibling campaign_launch tool could be referenced to clarify the launch boundary. These gaps make it functional yet not fully 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?

The input schema describes all eight parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context around template_version and draft-only content changes, but it does not resolve the inconsistency between the status enum ('paused', 'sending', 'cancelled') and the schema description saying 'paused, running or canceled'. It provides no additional 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?

The description states a specific set of actions—edit, pause, resume, or cancel—applied to a campaign, with the resource clearly identified. It also distinguishes itself from launch/create/get siblings by focusing on post-create state and content updates.

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 clearly explains the main usage constraint: content changes are only possible while the campaign is a draft, and after launch only state transitions occur. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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