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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that by disclosing a dry-run mode ('confirm=false is a preview'), which an agent cannot infer from the structured fields. It stops short of describing irreversibility or permission requirements.

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 tight sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded ahead of the confirm semantics.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the destructive/read-only profile. The description covers scope and the preview affordance, but omits whether applying is reversible and what error/edge behavior looks like for an irreversible mutation.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains confirm clearly (preview vs apply) and implies name is the renamed field, but says nothing about advertiser_id or campaign_id. Two of four parameters are left to the agent's inference, so it only partially compensates.

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+resource ('Renames a TikTok campaign') and, critically, narrows the ambiguous 'update' name to rename-only, which separates it from siblings like update_tiktok_campaign_status and update_tiktok_campaign_budget. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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 confirm=false/confirm=true sentence implies a two-step preview-then-apply workflow but never states when to use this tool versus the status/budget siblings, nor any prerequisites (e.g., needing the campaign to exist or be accessible). Usage is only implied.

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