fow_campaign_advance

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context the annotations do not: the progression is deterministic and bounded, it may deliver admitted provider work, it stops at exactly one boundary, and it 'does not invent answers or acceptance'. It stops short of describing the destructive/persistence consequences the annotations imply.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by clearly labelled Prerequisites and Effects blocks, so an agent can scan it quickly. 'Implicit advance operation' is near-redundant with the name and the help-dispatcher sentence is dense, but overall the size is proportionate and every remaining sentence carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers prerequisites, bounded effects, and the boundary it stops at. Combined with the annotations it gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly; only the destructive/idempotency implications and sibling routing are unaddressed.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema, making a baseline of 3 appropriate. The description only elaborates on transition_budget (it bounds the call) and the campaign prerequisite; it adds no format or interaction detail beyond what the schema supplies.

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 and resource: bounded deterministic progression of an existing verification campaign until a semantic/evidence/provider boundary. That is far more precise than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the similarly named sibling fow_packet_advance or the read-only fow_campaign_inspect, so sibling disambiguation is left to the name.

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 prerequisites ('use an existing campaign, current scope and the provider/evidence prerequisites of its next boundary') and notes the implicit advance operation bounded by transition_budget. But it never says when NOT to use it, nor names an alternative route (e.g. inspecting rather than advancing, or packet-level advance). Usage is implied rather than routed.

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