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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it explains that the pause is temporary and prevents new attempts until resumption, which helps an agent understand the mutation's scope and 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 no wasted words. The core action and its effect are stated immediately and efficiently.

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 simple mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits parameter guidance and does not route the agent among close siblings like cancel_campaign and resume_campaign, which leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

The description provides no information about either parameter. With schema description coverage at only 50%, campaign_id is undocumented in both the schema and the description, and the description does nothing to compensate for that gap.

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 ('Pause a running campaign') and clarifies the effect ('no new attempts are placed until it is resumed'), which implicitly distinguishes it from permanent alternatives like cancel_campaign. However, it does not explicitly name siblings such as resume_campaign or cancel_campaign, so the routing value is slightly below the top band.

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 phrase 'a running campaign' implies a precondition, and 'until it is resumed' signals that the action is temporary. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives like cancel_campaign or resume_campaign.

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