Update Campaign Creator

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-readonly, non-destructive, open-world mutation. The description adds useful side-effect clarification: it does not send email or register posted content. It does not explain whether changes are merged or replaced, how null values behave, or permission requirements, so transparency is only moderate.

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 scope. The exclusion sentence earns its place by preventing confusion with email/posting tools. No filler.

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?

The schema provides field names, enums and constraints, and annotations cover safety. Still, for a mutation with a complex nested patch object and no output schema, the description should explain patch semantics and parameter roles; it leaves operational gaps. Adequate but not complete.

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?

There are 3 required params and 0% schema description coverage, including a nested 'changes' object with 12 fields. The description groups editable fields into broad categories and explicitly mentions outreach stage, but it does not map categories to fields, explain partial-update/null-clearing semantics, or distinguish campaign_id from campaign_creator_id. Low coverage is only partially compensated.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Edit', and names the resource scope: contact details, memo, outreach metadata and outreach stage of a campaign creator. It also distinguishes itself from email-sending and posted-content registration, so an agent can tell it is not one of the email tools. A 4 rather than 5 because it does not explicitly mention campaign/campaign_creator targeting.

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 a clear context, editing a campaign creator's contact/outreach fields, and a negative boundary: it does not send email or register posted content. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over add_campaign_creator, remove_campaign_creators or update_campaign, nor does it state prerequisites. Usage is implied but not fully specified.

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