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

Adds genuine value beyond annotations by disclosing the required 'manage_campaigns' scope, which annotations do not cover. However it says nothing about the state transition itself — whether scheduled sends restart, whether resuming is reversible, or what happens on a non-paused campaign — leaving the mutation's side effects undisclosed despite readOnlyHint=false.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and the prerequisite (scope) second. Nothing is redundant and there is no 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 simple two-parameter, single-resource mutation with no output schema and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies what the tool does and the auth requirement. It stops short of describing the resulting campaign state or failure behavior on a non-paused campaign, which is the only material gap.

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%, so both campaign_id and idempotency_key are already documented in the schema, including the retry semantics of the idempotency key. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 ('resume') and resource ('paused campaign'), which cleanly separates it from pause_campaign and launch_campaign in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is implied by the verb rather than stated.

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?

'Resume a paused campaign' implies the precondition that the campaign must currently be paused, but the description never states what to do when a campaign is not paused, nor when to prefer resume over launch_campaign. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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