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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond the name: it doesn't say what resuming actually triggers (outbound dialing resuming, which contacts get called, whether it can be undone) or that repeated calls are not idempotent.

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 sentence with zero waste and the action front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for what it contains, though the extreme brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

This is a state-changing, non-idempotent operation with no output schema and one undocumented parameter, so the description carries real explanatory burden. It omits the required campaign state, side effects of resuming, and error conditions (e.g., resuming an already-running campaign), leaving the agent under-informed.

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 only 50%. The organization_id parameter is well documented in the schema, but campaign_id has no description anywhere, and the description text supplies no parameter meaning at all. With half the parameters undocumented, the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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 (resume) and resource (campaign) with the precondition implied by 'paused'. It is clear, but it does not differentiate itself from the very similar launch_campaign sibling, which an agent must choose between when a campaign is not already paused.

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 'paused campaign' implies a precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of launch_campaign or pause_campaign as alternatives. The agent must infer which sibling applies from names alone.

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