actualizar_campania

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states what fields can be edited and that it does not recreate. Missing: partial vs full update, idempotency, error handling (e.g., invalid campaignId), permission requirements, side effects, return value. Insufficient for safe invocation.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No filler or redundancy. Efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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 tool with moderate complexity (5 params, mutation, no output schema), the description is too brief. It does not cover typical expectations for an update operation: success/error responses, validation rules, required permissions, or related actions. The agent lacks essential context for correct usage.

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 low (40%). The description adds meaning by listing the editable fields (nombre, estado, presupuesto) and clarifying that budget values are in centavos. However, it fails to explain the required campaignId parameter (what it identifies) and gives no additional constraints or format hints beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Edita') and resource ('campaña existente'), explicitly distinguishes from create ('sin recrearla'), and lists the modifiable fields (nombre, estado, presupuesto). This differentiates it from siblings like crear_campania or pausar_campania.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, status changes can also be done via pausar_campania or activar_campania, but the description does not clarify when one is preferred. The only implicit distinction is 'sin recrearla', which separates it from creation.

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