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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It gestures at authorization ("same authorization and validation as website, API and CLI") but never states required permissions, whether the campaign must be paused first, whether the action is idempotent, or what state change occurs — all critical for a mutating tool.

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?

It is short (two sentences), but the first is a tautology and the second is about authorization rather than the action, so neither is front-loaded toward what the tool does. Size is appropriate, content placement is not.

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 two-parameter mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented params, the description omits prerequisites, side effects, and expected result. The lone authorization note is too vague to close those gaps.

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%: both required UUIDs (id, workspaceId) have format/pattern but no prose. The description adds nothing to explain what the campaign id vs workspace id mean or how they relate, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"SAGOT campaigns.resume" effectively restates the tool name rather than describing the action; it never says a resume continues a previously paused campaign or how that differs from campaigns_start, campaigns_pause, or campaigns_cancel. The only added sentence concerns authorization, not purpose.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though the sibling list contains campaigns_start, campaigns_pause, and campaigns_cancel that an agent must choose between. The authorization sentence does not help select this tool.

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