Update In-App Campaign

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds non-obvious behavior the annotations cannot convey: that edits to a live campaign propagate to devices on their next fetch, that only `active` campaigns are editable contrary to other channels, and that omitted fields are left unchanged. This is the kind of lifecycle and confirmation context an agent needs before mutating a live campaign.

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?

Three dense sentences, each carrying distinct load: the action, the editability/live-propagation rule, and the confirmation requirement, then the omit-unchanged semantic. Nothing is redundant and the critical constraint is front-loaded.

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 16-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the dangerous edges (which states block edits, live propagation, user confirmation, partial updates). It does not touch validation constraints on the nested button/content structures, but the schema carries those, so the remaining gap is minor.

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 a middling 69% across 16 parameters, and the nested `buttons` fields are largely undocumented. The description compensates for the single most important gap by stating "Omitted fields are unchanged," establishing PATCH semantics that the schema never states explicitly.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ("Update an in-app campaign") and the resource word cleanly separates it from the sibling update-email-campaign / update-sms-campaign / update-push-campaign tools. An agent can identify the target entity without opening 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?

It gives explicit when-not conditions ("ended and archived campaigns cannot be edited") and a mandatory process step ("before editing a live campaign you MUST confirm with the user"), which is unusually actionable. It does not name alternative tools such as create-in-app-campaign or clone-in-app-campaign, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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