Update Push Campaign

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: that editing a scheduled campaign silently changes the live send, and that omitted fields are left unchanged (PATCH semantics). It omits auth/rate-limit/reversibility details.

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 short sentences, no filler: identity, eligibility constraint, then the side-effect warning and partial-update rule. The most decision-critical fact (what can be edited) 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 19-parameter mutation with no output schema and destructiveHint=true, the description covers the essentials an agent needs before calling: editability, the scheduled-send side effect, and confirmation duty. It lacks anything about failure modes or what is returned after the update, which keeps it below 5.

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?

With 19 parameters and only 63% schema description coverage, the schema carries most of the burden and the description adds only the partial-update rule ("Omitted fields are unchanged"). No parameter names, value norms, or interactions (e.g. target list/segment/tag semantics, action_buttons constraints) are clarified in prose, so this lands at the baseline.

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?

Opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ("Update a push campaign"), which cleanly separates it from the sibling update-email-campaign/update-sms-campaign/update-in-app-campaign tools. It is clear but does not go as far as naming or contrasting a sibling directly.

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?

Gives an explicit eligibility precondition ("Only `draft` and `scheduled` campaigns can be edited") plus a confirmation requirement for scheduled campaigns, which is real when/when-not guidance. It stops short of routing to an alternative tool (e.g. create-push-campaign for new sends), so it is clear context rather than full alternative guidance.

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