direct.hf.resume_campaigns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state that resuming mutates live campaign state, whether it requires confirmation, what permissions are needed, or how dry_run/apply interact. 'Human-friendly' hints at a safe wrapper but discloses nothing concrete.

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?

Single short sentence, front-loaded with the action. It's efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the tool's under-specification rather than pure economy.

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?

A mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 33% schema coverage should do far more. The dry_run/apply pattern and account/client-login scoping context are never explained, leaving the agent without enough to invoke it safely.

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 33%, so the description must compensate. 'By id or name' usefully clarifies the campaign_ids vs campaign_name duality, but the potentially critical apply and dry_run parameters are left completely undocumented in both schema and 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?

States a specific verb (resume) and resource (campaigns), clearly distinguishing this from sibling mutations like pause_campaigns, archive_campaigns, and resume_ads. It doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings or state preconditions (e.g. must be paused), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus pause/archive/unarchive siblings, and no explanation of the dry_run/apply workflow implied by the schema. The agent must infer intended usage from the tool name alone.

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