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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully clarifies that setting status never publishes content (disambiguating the 'active' enum value from a publish action), but it says nothing about partial-update semantics, whether omitted fields are cleared, or permission requirements.

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, no filler, and the scope qualifier is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the second sentence is a caveat rather than something that anchors the call.

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 9-parameter destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description omits the things an agent most needs: whether this is a partial patch, what happens to unspecified fields, and which fields are actually updatable. Only the 'status does not publish' caveat is covered.

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 only 33% — just the three UUID fields are documented — and the description adds nothing about the seven other parameters (name, status, starts_on, ends_on, channels, objective). With low coverage the description was expected to compensate, and it does not.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Update one owned marketing campaign') and adds an ownership/scope qualifier, so an agent can distinguish it from create_marketing_campaign. It does not distinguish it from the sibling update_marketing_audience / update_marketing_brand tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus create_marketing_campaign, get_marketing_campaign, or the other update_* marketing tools, nor any prerequisite like needing an existing campaign id from list_marketing_campaigns. The second sentence is a behavioral clarification, not usage guidance.

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