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

The description states a state-changing operation ('Resume a paused campaign') while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which directly contradicts the described effect. Because the structured fields are actively misleading here, the description cannot be credited for behavioral disclosure and the inconsistency must be flagged.

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 the brevity edges toward under-specification for a state-mutating tool.

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 no output schema, a contradictory readOnlyHint, one fully undocumented required parameter, and no usage guidance, the definition is materially incomplete. An agent cannot confidently determine prerequisites, effects, or how to source campaign_id.

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 only 50%: in_workspace is documented in the schema, but campaign_id carries no description anywhere and the tool description adds nothing about where to obtain it or what form it takes. With half the parameters undocumented, the description fails to compensate.

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 gives a specific verb ('Resume') and resource ('campaign') plus the precondition that the campaign must be paused, so an agent knows what the call does without opening the schema. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby siblings campaigns_pause, campaigns_cancel, or campaigns_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 only usage signal is the implied precondition 'paused campaign'. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of what to do if the campaign is already active or cancelled, and no pointer to the sibling tools that manipulate the same resource.

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