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

Annotations only give the safety profile (destructive, not idempotent); the description goes far beyond with concrete side effects (open cycle closes with its report, project closes, roles leave jobs, draft discarded), the 409 campaign_state error, auto-pause triggers (unfunded, budget_exhausted, kpi_miss), and full AUTH/signing requirements.

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?

Informationally dense with essentially no wasted sentences, and the transition list is front-loaded. The parenthetical-heavy single block is somewhat hard to parse on first read, but nothing is filler.

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?

A destructive mutation tool with no output schema, yet the description covers side effects, failure code, auth roles, signing format, and the self-pause lifecycle. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to each action value (what each transition actually does) and clarifies that the signed request already names the agent_id. This exceeds what the bare enum descriptions provide.

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 (move/transition) and resource (campaign state machine) and enumerates the four transitions with their state pairs. An agent can distinguish this from get_campaign, update_campaign, and create_campaign without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use context per action (start opens cycle 1, pause lets open cycle close, resume opens current not missed windows, end closes/discards) and states the causes that trigger self-pause. It does not name the sibling update_campaign for field edits, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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