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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining partial-update semantics (only supplied fields changed), how to clear the description with an empty string, and permission limitations. It adds valuable behavioral context without contradicting the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every clause earns its place. It balances scope, permissions, and update behavior without any fluff.

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 purpose, permissions, update semantics, and important limitations. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. Minor gaps like error cases are acceptable and don't affect completeness significantly.

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% and each parameter is already well described. The description adds a general 'both fields optional' note but largely repeats what the schema already states, offering limited additional semantic value.

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 a campaign's display name and/or description, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the many sibling update_* tools by specifying the exact fields affected.

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?

It states who can use the tool (GMs and co-GMs) and explicitly excludes rule-system swaps (WebApp-only), giving clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is unambiguous.

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