refine_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 only says 'refine' and 'based on feedback' without disclosing whether the original campaign is modified, what is returned, or any side effects.

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 seven-word sentence with no filler, making it very concise. However, it may be too terse for a tool with four nested objects, so it loses a point for appropriateness of size.

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?

With four required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to give an agent enough context about the workflow, return values, or prerequisites. It mentions feedback and campaigns but omits essential operational details.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all four parameters (userBusiness, targetBusiness, campaign, feedback), so the baseline is met. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning feedback.

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 ('refine') and resource ('marketing campaigns'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_campaign and refine_business. However, it does not explicitly differentiate its scope from alternatives, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 phrase 'based on feedback' implies the tool is used when feedback exists to improve a campaign, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus create_campaign or when not to use it.

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