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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-open-world, non-idempotent update. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: goal cannot be blanked, claim lists are replaced whole, claims are human-only, agents are refused at write time by claims_refused, and the gate cannot catch overstatements of allowed claims.

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 organized into paragraphs and front-loads some key rules, but it uses flowery language and external references such as 'CRM-9 in spirit' and 'CRM-17' that may not help an agent. The claim-gate explanation is valuable but lengthy relative to the core update operation.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical goal and claims behavior but omits name and target_profile entirely. It also does not describe what happens to fields that are not passed, leaving important update semantics incomplete.

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 67%, and the description adds important meaning for goal and especially the claims_allowed/claims_refused fields, including human-only entry and whole-list replacement. It does not compensate for the empty schema descriptions of name and target_profile, so it falls short of full parameter coverage.

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 opening 'Sharpen a campaign' is metaphorical, but the later 'Effects: campaign updated; claim lists replaced when passed' clarifies that this is a mutation tool. It does not clearly enumerate all updateable fields such as name and target_profile, nor does it distinguish this tool from siblings like crm_create_campaign or crm_set_campaign_status.

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 gives useful constraints: the goal may be corrected but never blanked, and claim lists are human-only and should be read via crm_get_campaign before drafting. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives such as crm_set_campaign_status or crm_create_campaign.

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