cancel_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the state transition (scheduled → draft), which is useful. However, it does not mention whether cancellation is idempotent, what happens if the campaign is already sent or already in draft, or any authorization/rate-limit considerations.

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?

One compact sentence that packs the action, the state transition, and the endpoint. No filler words, and the most important information (cancel + return to draft) appears first.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with a clear state-transition behavior, the description is mostly complete. Gaps: it does not clarify return value/response or edge cases (e.g., can a sent campaign be canceled? is cancel only for scheduled ones?). These are minor for a single-id mutation but worth noting.

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% (the only parameter, id, is described as 'The campaign id.'), so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds no additional meaning about the id (e.g., format) but no compensation is needed given 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 (cancel), resource (scheduled campaign), and outcome (returning it to draft), plus the exact HTTP endpoint. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like update_campaign or delete_campaign.

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 the tool is for scheduled campaigns that should be reverted to draft, which gives clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the 'scheduled' qualifier and the 'returning it to draft' behavior make the intended usage fairly unambiguous relative to delete_campaign.

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