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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a key behavior: partial updates, meaning omitted fields are unchanged. It also communicates a timing constraint. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, response behavior, or whether certain fields become immutable after launch, which is a meaningful gap.

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 with no wasted words. The primary verb and resource are front-loaded, and the partial-update rule is stated directly. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool has four parameters including a nested settings object, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description does not explain the settings structure, the semantics of each field, or the response. The partial-update and timing notes are helpful, but an agent still lacks critical information for reliable invocation.

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 compensate. It adds a generic partial-update semantic but does not explain any of the four parameters individually: id, name, settings, or description. In particular, the nested settings object has no guidance on its accepted shape, making correct parameter construction uncertain.

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 clearly identifies the operation as 'Update a campaign' and adds a useful timing constraint ('before or after it has started'), which separates it from sibling create/launch/pause/archive/delete tools. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative, so differentiation is clear but not fully explicit.

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 gives explicit context: updates are valid both before and after launch, and partial updates are allowed by including only fields to change. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus launch, pause, or archive, so exclusions are implied rather than stated.

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