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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the 'paused' precondition and does not say what resuming triggers (e.g., email sends, scheduling resumption) or whether costs/quota are consumed — a meaningful gap for a state-changing campaign action.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity is under-specification rather than true conciseness, which is reflected in the other dimensions.

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 mutating tool with three undocumented required params, no output schema, and easily confused siblings (activate/pause/cancel/update_distribution_campaign), the definition is missing critical context. It does not establish the difference between resume and activate or describe the resulting campaign state.

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?

All three required parameters (projectId, siteId, campaignId) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about them. It neither explains the ID formats nor which scope each ID identifies, so an agent gets no help beyond the parameter names.

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 adds the state precondition ('paused') beyond the name, but 'Resume a campaign' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title rather than a distinguishable verb+resource statement. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like activate_distribution_campaign or pause_distribution_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?

No guidance on when to use resume versus activate_distribution_campaign, which sounds nearly synonymous, nor any preconditions (e.g., campaign must currently be paused). The 'paused' state is implied by the word 'resume' but no alternative routing is given.

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