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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's real value is clarifying the scope of that destruction: supplied values overwrite existing settings, computed report metrics are recalculated, and participants/content are explicitly NOT deleted. That materially bounds the blast radius beyond what the annotation flags convey.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the overwrite/recalculation behavior and the non-deletion guarantee. Every sentence earns its place, though the second and third are packed with multiple distinct facts.

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 destructive mutation with nested params and an existing output schema, the description covers merge semantics, side effects, ownership, and the tracking-pause capability. Auth requirements beyond ownership and conflict/error behavior are not addressed, but little an agent needs to call it 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 description coverage is 100% and the nested 'changes' object documents each field (cpm per platform, starts_at/ends_at null-clearing, emv_override null restore, refresh_state enum). The description only groups those fields into categories, adding little syntax or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (Edit) with the exact editable surface (metadata, tracking cadence/state, platform CPM, EMV override) and scopes it to campaigns owned by the authenticated agency. An agent can distinguish this from campaign_create/campaign_get without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the ownership constraint and the field enumeration, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to an alternative sibling (e.g. campaign_create for new campaigns). Minimum viable routing information only.

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