douyin_resume_campaign

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

The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: it preserves candidate list, current video, comment pool, success records, and dedup progress, and checks whether the current comment is already posted to avoid duplicates. This supplements the openWorldHint and idempotentHint with concrete state-preservation and safety checks. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false.

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 concise sentences, with the primary use case front-loaded and no redundant filler. Each sentence provides distinct information: when to use, state preserved, and duplicate-prevention behavior.

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 tool is well-covered given its moderate complexity: purpose, usage timing, state preservation, and safety check are all described. Absence of an output schema is acceptable, but the description does not mention potential side effects (e.g., continuing to post comments) explicitly, though that is implied by 'resume campaign'.

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 0%, and the description does not explicitly map the two parameters. It mentions verification status ('userCompletedVerification' implied by '用户已完成验证') but does not name campaignId or clarify the boolean flag's meaning. The const true constraint is left undiscussed, so the agent must infer parameter semantics from the schema alone.

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 clearly states the tool resumes an original campaign after user verification, distinguishing it from sibling tools like start_campaign and stop_campaign. It specifies the resource (campaign) and action (resume), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly conditions usage on the user having completed verification in the current Chrome window, and notes it does not accept verification codes, implying it should be used after verification rather than for verification. However, it does not explicitly name alternate tools for starting or checking campaigns, so some reliance on sibling context is needed.

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