Stop Campaign

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags the operation as destructive; the description adds the state precondition that the campaign must be running. It does not describe consequences such as irreversibility or impact on results, but the annotation covers the key safety signal.

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 declarative sentence with no filler; front-loads the action and the target. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter destructive command with an output schema and destructiveHint annotation, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states the action and target state, though it could mention whether stopping is reversible or how it interacts with campign status.

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 100% schema description coverage and a single campaign_id parameter, the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. The schema already documents the parameter as a Prosp campaign UUID, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Stop') and resource ('campaign'), and adds the qualifier 'running' to clarify the intended state. It is clearly distinct from siblings like start_campaign, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 appropriate use case—when a campaign is running and should be halted—but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not direct the agent to alternatives such as start_campaign or get_campaign_status.

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