zernio_update_campaign_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits like mutability, side effects (e.g., impact on running ads), or response format. It only states the action without any additional context beyond the obvious.

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 description is extremely concise (6 words) and front-loaded with the core action. However, it lacks any structure or explanation that could aid the agent, slightly penalizing the score.

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 simple status update tool, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain the return value (no output schema) or any constraints, but the complexity of the tool is low. More context (e.g., idempotency, required permissions) would improve completeness.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning or usage details for the parameters, keeping the baseline score at 3.

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 and resource: 'Pause or activate an ad campaign.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'zernio_create_campaign' or 'zernio_list_campaigns' by specifying the update action on campaign status.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites (e.g., campaign must exist) or when pausing vs activating is appropriate. The description does not address context or exclusions.

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