Campaigns Update Campaign

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: bidding strategy changes are intentionally excluded to avoid disturbing learning history. This explains why a seemingly obvious operation is not available.

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 primary actions and ending with a useful design rationale. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 rich schema, output schema, and annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand scope and exclusions. It could mention that unspecified fields remain unchanged, but that is largely implied by the update semantics and not a critical gap.

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%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters individually. The description adds a high-level semantic grouping (rename, dates, budget) but no new parameter-level details or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it renames a campaign, changes dates, or reassigns it to another budget. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like campaigns_set_campaign_status and campaigns_update_campaign_budget by naming the exact campaign-level fields.

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 explicitly names a key when-not-to-use condition: bidding strategy changes are deliberately excluded, and the alternative — creating a new campaign — is given. This is clear routing guidance for an agent deciding between this tool and campaigns_create_campaign.

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