ads_update_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a significant side effect (changing objective restarts learning and may force-unpublish ad sets), which is valuable. However, it does not mention other potential behaviors such as permission requirements, reversibility of changes, or effects of updating other fields, leaving gaps.

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 concise: two sentences that state the purpose and a critical warning. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient for an AI agent.

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 (13 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, zero parameter descriptions), this description is insufficient. It covers only the general purpose and one side effect, omitting details about parameter formats, return values, required permissions, or handling of optional fields. Agents would face significant ambiguity when invoking this tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter explanations. It only hints at the 'objective' parameter's consequences but does not describe any of the other 12 parameters (e.g., pacing_type, bid_strategy, spend_cap_cents). The schema provides only titles, so the description adds minimal semantic value beyond what is already self-evident.

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 'Update fields on an existing campaign,' which specifies the verb (update), resource (campaign), and scope (existing). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create/delete/pause/activate by focusing on field-level updates. The purpose is explicit, though it doesn't enumerate the exact fields, relying on the schema.

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 implies usage for modifying campaign fields and includes a warning about changing objective, which serves as a caution for when not to blindly update. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pause/activate or create/delete, nor does it mention any exclusions beyond the objective side effect.

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