Update timezone or pause state. Pausing is always allowed. Resuming is not: if the pause came from reputation or SES tenant risk, a healthy observation has to exist first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timezone | No | IANA timezone | |
| marketing_state | No | active or paused | |
| organization_id | Yes | Active organization ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / marketing_state / enumAdded value: +[
+ "active",
+ "paused"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a critical business rule: pausing is always allowed, but resuming has a precondition (a healthy observation must exist if the pause came from reputation or SES tenant risk). This is valuable and goes beyond typical 'update' semantics, though it does not mention permission requirements or side effects beyond the state change.
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 extremely concise, with two sentences that front-load the purpose ('Update timezone or pause state') and then immediately present the key caveat. There is zero wasted words, and the structure makes it easy to parse.
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 simple update tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior and the critical business constraint. It does not describe the return value or error cases, but these are not strictly required for an agent to call the tool correctly, given the schema already defines required parameters. The description is sufficiently complete for typical usage.
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%, with each parameter already described in the input schema. The description itself adds no extra parameter semantics beyond referring to 'timezone' and 'pause state', which map to the timezone and marketing_state fields. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb ('Update') and the resources ('timezone or pause state'). It is distinct from sibling tools like commsharbor_messaging_settings (which likely reads settings) and other update tools, so an agent can tell what this tool does without ambiguity.
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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings. It does not mention alternatives (e.g., 'to view settings use commsharbor_messaging_settings') or conditions under which this tool should be chosen. The only guidance is a behavioral rule about resuming, which is not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.