Api campaigns partial update

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

Annotations provide a partial safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds zero behavioral context. It does not contradict them, yet contributes nothing on mutation semantics, required permissions, or partial-update merge behavior.

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?

It is a single snake_case identifier, so there is no wasted prose, but this reflects under-specification rather than conciseness. It is not front-loaded with any actionable information.

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 mutation tool with an opaque body parameter, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should carry the full burden and does not. An agent cannot tell what fields to send or what the call returns.

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% for two parameters (id, body), and the description says nothing to compensate. The opaque 'body' object, which carries the actual fields to patch, is entirely undocumented.

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 is the raw operation identifier 'api_campaigns_partial_update', which merely restates the tool name and title. It implies a partial update on campaigns but adds no verb-object phrasing an agent could act on and does not distinguish this from the sibling campaigns_update or campaigns_create.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus campaigns_update, campaigns_object_retrieve, or campaigns_destroy. The agent is left to infer everything from the name alone.

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