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 states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified settings. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose with specific examples. It avoids unnecessary words and gets straight to the point, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the required 'campaign_id' parameter.

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?

Given the complexity of a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial information such as behavioral details (e.g., error conditions, side effects), usage context, and output expectations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool fully.

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%, providing full documentation for all 6 parameters. The description adds marginal value by listing examples of updatable settings (budget, bid, targeting, status), which aligns with some parameters but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 'campaign settings', with specific examples of what can be updated (budget, bid, targeting, status). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_campaign' or 'clone_campaign' by focusing on modification rather than creation or duplication, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing campaign), exclusions (e.g., what cannot be updated), or comparisons to siblings like 'start_campaigns' or 'stop_campaigns' for status changes. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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