direct.update_campaigns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update campaigns' and omits permissions, side effects, partial-update semantics, required fields beyond the schema, and whether updates are reversible.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but for a mutation tool with nested objects and multiple auth parameters, it is arguably under-specified. It is borderline appropriately sized.

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?

The description is inadequate for a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. It fails to explain what campaign fields can be updated, whether partial updates are allowed, or what the response looks like, even though the schema covers parameter details.

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%, with each parameter documented (items requires Id, params override, account_id, direct_client_login). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('campaigns in Yandex Direct'), making the core operation clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling high-level update tools such as direct.hf.set_campaign_budget or direct.update_adgroups; it simply names the resource.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided; the description merely restates the tool's name. It offers no alternatives or conditions for selecting this tool over direct.create_campaigns or direct.hf.* campaign setters.

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