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

No annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only notes that authorization and validation match the website, API, and CLI, but omits critical specifics: whether cancellation is permanent/destructive, what happens to in-progress calls, required permissions, or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation operation.

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?

Very brief but under-specified rather than concise; the cryptic 'SAGOT' prefix wastes space and the auth/validation sentence is not front-loaded for the primary task. Two sentences do not adequately structure the necessary information.

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 campaign-cancellation mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the effect and prerequisites. It gives only a cross-surface auth note, leaving key questions unanswered.

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 0%, so the description must clarify the two required parameters (id, workspaceId). The description mentions neither, leaving their meaning and expected values entirely to the bare schema types.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name ('campaigns.cancel') with an unexplained prefix 'SAGOT'. It does not state what cancellation entails or distinguish it from sibling operations like campaigns_pause or campaigns_resume. Only a minimal verb+resource repetition is present.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus campaigns_pause, campaigns_resume, or other campaign lifecycle tools. The note about shared authorization/validation across surfaces is not usage guidance.

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