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

With no annotations, the description attempts to disclose behavior: it notes the administrator-only permission and explicitly states the tool does not enable the installation dispatch flag. However, it does not clarify the effects of 'authorization' versus 'pause,' any side effects on campaign state, or the meaning of the idempotencyKey, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the administrator-only caveat and the negative claim about the dispatch flag. There is no fluff, but the terseness prioritizes brevity over completeness.

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 complex tool: three required parameters, one deeply nested authorization object, no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter descriptions. The description does not explain how to construct the authorization object, the meaning of state/authorized/expectedVersion, or the expected behavior. It is wholly inadequate for correct invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It provides no information about any of the three parameters (id, authorization, idempotencyKey), nor the nested authorization object's fields. The description adds zero semantic value over the raw schema.

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 identifies a specific verb ('authorize'/'pause'), a resource ('campaign'), and adds a clarifying exclusion ('does not enable the installation dispatch flag'). This meaningfully distinguishes it from common siblings like create_campaign or read_campaigns, though it leaves ambiguity about the exact nature of 'authorization' versus 'pause'.

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?

It states an administrator-only restriction, which is a prerequisite, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any scenario where it should be avoided. No sibling tools are referenced, and no trigger conditions are provided.

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