update_campaignModify campaign settings such as name, budget, hashtags, content brief, or status to keep campaigns current. Status changes to active, paused, or completed still respect active-slot limits.
Update campaign settings or set active, paused or completed. Active-slot limits still apply.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| changes | Yes | ||
| campaign_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral constraint — that active-slot limits still apply when activating — but says nothing about whether updates are partial/merge, whether status changes are reversible, or what errors arise.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the constraint. No filler, though it is perhaps too terse given the absent parameter detail.
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?
This is a mutation tool with a nested ten-field changes object, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema; the description supplies neither field semantics nor return/patch behavior. An agent still has to guess how partial updates behave and what setting status to active does when slots are full.
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 0%, so the description must carry the param burden; instead it only vaguely refers to 'campaign settings' and statuses. It never clarifies that 'changes' is a partial-update object merged into existing settings, nor does it acknowledge the ten updatable fields the schema defines.
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?
States a specific verb (update) and resource (campaign), and enumerates the status values that can be set. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings like update_campaign_creator or create_campaign, but the core action is unmistakable.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing an existing campaign_id or how this differs from other campaign mutation tools. The only contextual note is that active-slot limits still apply.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.