Update campaigns

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the read-then-write audit behavior ('current values are read first and their old values kept'), the confirm gates for risky mutations, API-side rejections of sub-1.00 USD budget rises, and the micro-unit convention. What's missing is any mention of partial-failure semantics in a 500-item batch, which matters for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loads the operation and the item contract before the special-case rules, and no sentence is filler. It is dense with constraints in the back half, but each constraint is actionable rather than redundant.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the mutation contract, units, and confirmation triggers. The remaining gap is ad_account_id and how batch-level failures are reported, which is material at a 500-item scale.

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%, so the description carries the burden and largely does: it explains the items shape (id plus only changed fields), gives worked examples, names the accepted confirm tokens 'APPLY' and 'ARCHIVE', and spells out micro-unit money fields. The ad_account_id parameter is left entirely unexplained, which keeps it short of full coverage.

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 and resource ('Update campaigns') plus concrete scope facts: batch cap of 500 per call and that it mutates the live account. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as pinterest_ads_adjust_budgets, pinterest_ads_set_statuses, or pinterest_ads_archive_campaigns, which cover overlapping outcomes.

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?

The description gives usable rules for when confirmation is required (rises above PINTEREST_ADS_MAX_INCREASE_PCT, large batches, status ARCHIVED) and notes objective_type is draft-only. It never routes the agent away to an alternative tool, even though adjust_budgets, set_statuses, and archive_campaigns exist for subsets of this behavior.

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