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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which are minimal) by explaining the approval_token flow (first call returns approval_required, second call with token proceeds), the effect on the campaign (sends continue under window/caps), and the safety guarantee that it is equivalent to a dashboard user action. This fully discloses the behavioral contract.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, approval flow, safety guarantee. No filler, front-loaded with the core action, and the critical approval mechanism is explained immediately.

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 mutation tool with an approval gate, the description covers the required call pattern, error response, and safety scope. Without an output schema, it still tells the agent what to expect on failure and how to proceed. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The description explains the approval_token's role and lifecycle, which is critical and not obvious from the schema alone. The campaign_id is a standard uuid and self-evident from the tool name, so the 50% schema coverage is adequately compensated.

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 the exact action (resume a paused campaign) with a specific verb and resource, and adds clarifying detail about the engine's window and caps. The purpose is unmistakable and clearly distinct from siblings like pause_campaign and launch_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 implies the correct usage context—resuming a paused campaign—and clarifies that it mirrors a dashboard user's action, ensuring no escalation of privileges. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent will know when to invoke it.

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