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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the state transition (DRAFT to PAUSED), refusal conditions tied to app-side checks, the fact that nothing reaches a platform until trigger_sync, and the subsequent pause behavior. It also states that the campaign is returned and explains Space scoping, which is substantial behavioral context for a non-destructive mutation.

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 front-loaded with the core action and state transition, then layers in refusal conditions, sync implications, return behavior, and Space scoping. Every sentence carries operational value and there is no redundant 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important state change, refusal conditions, downstream sync behavior, return value, and Space scoping. Combined with complete parameter descriptions and annotations, an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema already documents both campaign_id and space_id. The description reinforces that campaign_id refers to a draft campaign and notes the space_id override, but it adds little technical meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb and resource: "Confirm a DRAFT campaign: moves it to PAUSED." It also distinguishes the action from other campaign changes by explaining that no other change can take a campaign out of DRAFT and that this is the one way to do so.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance for draft campaigns and when-not conditions: confirmation is refused while the campaign builder is still writing or while a required question is unanswered. It also clarifies the downstream path, noting that nothing reaches a platform until trigger_sync and that the campaign stays paused until status is set to ENABLED and synced again.

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