hires_update_nurture_campaign

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: updates require passing the full step list, removals are handled via is_deleted=true, and existing steps must include ids. This exposes the full-replacement semantics that are critical for correct invocation, though it omits mention of return values 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?

The description is three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and each sentence adds crucial information without redundancy. It's a model of efficient specification.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, various step types) and the absence of annotations or output schema, the description covers the most important usage constraint (full step list with is_deleted flag) but leaves the return value unmentioned. The rich schema compensates for parameter details, making it adequately complete.

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 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds valuable context beyond the schema by emphasizing that all steps must be passed and that removal uses is_deleted, which clarifies the array semantics more forcefully than the schema's generic description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') with a clear resource ('existing nurture campaign'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like hires_create_nurture_campaign and hires_delete_nurture_campaign. The phrase 'existing' further clarifies its scope.

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 clearly to use the tool when updating an existing nurture campaign, providing context for when to call it. It also gives operational guidance on the required update pattern (pass all steps, mark deleted steps) but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not scenarios.

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