update_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior of partial updates ('only provided fields will be modified'), but does not mention permissions, side effects, or return values. This is a useful but incomplete disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The second sentence adds valuable behavioral context without redundancy.

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 9-parameter update tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the core purpose and partial-update behavior. However, it lacks guidance on permissions, return values, or edge cases like status changes to DELETED. Adequate but with gaps.

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 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds general partial-update context but no parameter-specific detail beyond that. Baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing campaign', distinguishing it from create_campaign, delete_campaign, and copy_campaign. The second sentence clarifies partial-update semantics, which further differentiates it from other campaign-related tools.

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 phrase 'existing campaign' clearly implies the tool is for modifying already-created campaigns, and the partial-update note implies it is not for full replacement. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like create_campaign or delete_campaign or state when not to use it.

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