Api campaigns update

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

The description adds nothing beyond the annotations, which already state readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. It does not say what fields can be changed, whether a full or partial body is expected, what permissions are required, or what happens to unspecified fields.

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 short, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. There is no front-loaded statement of action, scope, or payload expectations.

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 write/update tool with an undocumented free-form body, no output schema, and no annotations covering payload semantics, the description does nothing to make the tool safely invocable. An agent would have to guess the request body entirely.

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 coverage is 0% for two parameters, and the description supplies no compensating information. The 'body' parameter is an untyped free-form object with additionalProperties=true, so without documentation the agent has no way to know what payload shape the endpoint accepts — a critical gap.

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 literally the tool name with the namespace prefix stripped ('api_campaigns_update'), which restates the title rather than explaining the action. An agent can infer 'update something in campaigns' only from the name itself, not from any descriptive text. It does not distinguish this from siblings such as campaigns_partial_update or campaigns_batch_action_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 tool versus campaigns_partial_update, campaigns_batch_action_create, or campaigns_update. No preconditions, no exclusions, no alternatives are mentioned.

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