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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses important side effects: paused cancels pending actions, running recreates only interrupted active steps while preserving excluded contacts, and only provided fields are changed. This gives an agent a precise mental model of the mutation behavior without contradicting any annotation.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and field list, and the status-specific behavior is packed into two short sentences. It is efficient for the complexity it covers, though it could be slightly tightened without losing key details.

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 description covers ownership, partial updates, and the tricky status-related side effects, which is sufficient for an update tool with no output schema. The main gap is that it does not explain the semantics of 'draft' or 'stopped' statuses, which are also allowed by the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the behavioral significance of status values and the partial-update contract. It does not just repeat parameter names.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update settings of an existing campaign you own'), enumerates exactly which fields are updatable, and includes the ownership constraint. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as create_campaign, start_campaign, and stop_campaign.

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 provides strong contextual guidance on status transitions, explaining that paused cancels pending actions safely and running performs a real resume via start_campaign. It does not explicitly say 'use start_campaign instead for fresh starts' or list exclusions, but the intended use is clear enough.

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