update_marketing_campaignUpdate one owned marketing campaign. Campaign status never publishes content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| ends_on | No | ||
| brand_id | No | Full UUID from the matching list tool. | |
| channels | No | ||
| objective | No | ||
| starts_on | No | ||
| audience_id | No | Full UUID from the matching list tool. | |
| campaign_id | Yes | Full UUID from the matching list tool. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are provided with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds one behavioral note: 'Campaign status never publishes content', which is not covered by annotations. However, it does not disclose other potential side effects, permission requirements, or reversibility, leaving gaps.
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 remarkably concise with two sentences, both providing essential information: first sentence states the core purpose, second adds a critical behavioral constraint. There is no fluff or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, output schema present, annotations) the description is too brief. It does not explain what happens when status changes, validation rules, or how the update interacts with other campaign-related tools. The description leaves significant gaps that could lead to misuse.
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%, meaning many parameters (name, status, ends_on, channels, objective, starts_on) lack descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not compensate by explaining any parameters, thus failing to add meaning beyond the schema. Only brand_id, audience_id, and campaign_id have minimal descriptions in the schema itself.
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 starts with 'Update one owned marketing campaign', which clearly states the action (update), the object (marketing campaign), and a scope condition (owned). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_marketing_campaign or list_marketing_campaigns.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_marketing_campaign or other update tools. It lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information, making it insufficient for an agent to decide between this and similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.