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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that only provided fields are changed, reinforcing idempotency. No contradiction; transparency is adequate but doesn't detail error cases or side effects.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the overall purpose, then details. No fluff; every word earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and 7 parameters (1 required), the description covers core behavior and field semantics. It lacks return value info but is sufficient for basic usage. Consider adding ownership prerequisite explicitly.

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 baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining enum semantics for status (pause/resume) and reiterates that only provided fields are changed, which clarifies partial update behavior.

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 states the tool updates settings of an existing campaign the user owns, listing specific fields (name, description, daily_limit, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_campaign, start_campaign, and stop_campaign by focusing on settings updates, not lifecycle actions.

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 implies ownership prerequisite and provides examples for status transitions (pause/resume). It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like start_campaign or stop_campaign, but the context is clear: this tool updates multiple settings, not just status.

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