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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description does nothing to explain what is destroyed — notably that group_ids fully replaces targeting and that fields are overwritten. With no mention of overwrite semantics or irreversibility, the description leaves the highest-risk behavior to the annotation flag alone.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word maps to a facet of the operation. Brevity is the issue only in the sense of omission, not verbosity.

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 an 8-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description should say that only supplied fields change, that group_ids wipes existing targeting, and what a caller needs up front. None of that is present, so an agent could reasonably call it in a way that clobbers targeting.

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 field meanings (YYYY-MM-DD dates, group_ids replaces targeted groups, https image URL) are already carried by the schema. The description's phrase 'content, schedule or targeting' roughly groups the fields but adds no syntax or format detail.

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?

States a specific verb (change) and resource (campaign) plus the three facets modified: content, schedule, targeting. This distinguishes it from delete_campaign/pause_campaign, though it never names those siblings, so an agent must infer the split from the name alone.

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 guidance on when to use this versus pause_campaign, resume_campaign, or delete_campaign, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g. needing an id from list_campaigns). The one sentence implies a general edit but gives no selection criteria.

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