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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's main contribution is the write-scope auth requirement, which is genuinely useful. However, it never discloses that this is a partial update (only supplied fields change), leaves omitted fields untouched, or that the status enum includes 'deleted' — a soft-delete outcome that an agent should know about despite destructiveHint=false.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the auth constraint — nothing redundant. It is arguably over-terse for a six-parameter mutation, but not a word is wasted.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify partial-update semantics and the effect of the 'deleted' status value. It conveys only the verb and an auth requirement, so an agent still has to infer how the call behaves on unsupplied fields.

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% and every parameter carries its own description, including enum values and min/max bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning about how parameters interact, such as follow_up_max_count only mattering when follow_up_enabled is true. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('update') and resource ('a campaign'), which cleanly separates it from get_campaign, delete_campaign and create_campaign in the sibling list. It stops short of saying which attributes are mutable, leaving 'details' vague, but the core operation is unambiguous.

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 gives a prerequisite ('requires write scope') but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of related operations an agent might confuse it with, such as add_campaign_contacts or attach_audience_to_campaign, nor any statement about when a different update path should be chosen.

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