update_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a PATCH (partial update), which implies non-destructive merging, but it doesn't disclose whether updating a non-draft fails, whether certain fields are immutable after send, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with 14 parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb, resource, and scope, and includes the HTTP method/path. It is efficient and free of fluff, though it could have used the space to add behavioral or parameter context.

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 14-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain the draft-only constraint's enforcement, whether null clears fields (though some schema descriptions hint at this), or what the response looks like. An agent would need to open the schema and guess at behavior for the many undocumented parameters.

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 43%, so the schema documents some parameters (id, ab_test, topic_id, recurrence, segment_id, recurrence_every) but leaves 8 parameters (from, html, name, text, subject, reply_to, audience_id, preview_text) with no description. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond 'content or targeting', so it doesn't compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does partial work.

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'), a resource ('a draft campaign'), and the scope ('content or targeting'), and includes the HTTP method/path (PATCH /campaigns/:id) which adds precision. It distinguishes from siblings like create_campaign, send_campaign, and cancel_campaign, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 this is for draft campaigns only, which is a clear usage constraint. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs alternatives like update_email or update_automation, nor does it mention that only drafts can be updated or what happens if a non-draft is targeted. The draft restriction is useful but not fully elaborated.

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