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

Annotations already establish this is a non-read, non-open-world, non-destructive write. The description adds real context beyond them: it is a full replacement of settings (not a partial patch) and applies only to drafts. It stops short of stating auth requirements, what happens to fields not supplied, or reversibility.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler is structurally clean, but for a 12-parameter nested mutation it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise; the brevity reflects missing content, not economy.

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 complex mutation with 11 required params, a nested cadence object, and no schema descriptions, one sentence is far too thin. No output schema exists, so returns need not be explained, but the parameter and behavioral gaps are substantial.

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 0% across 12 parameters (11 required, plus a nested cadence object and a mode enum), so the schema gives an agent no prose semantics. The description compensates with nothing about any parameter, leaving the entire surface undocumented.

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 and resource ("Replace a draft campaign's settings") and, crucially, corrects the name/title's "update/edit" to the more precise "replace" (full PUT-style semantics) while scoping to draft campaigns. It is clear on its own, though it never distinguishes itself from distribution siblings like create_distribution_campaign or activate_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?

The word "draft" implies a precondition (only drafts are editable), which is the only usage signal. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to alternatives such as create/activate/get_distribution_campaign.

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