pause_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by explaining the exact behavior: no new calls are placed, active calls finish naturally, and the campaign retains its progress. This goes beyond a simple 'pause' and discloses key 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 concise and front-loaded, starting with the main action, then detailing behavioral effects, resumability, and use cases. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool does, the behavioral effects, and when to use it. It doesn't address error cases (e.g., pausing an already-paused campaign), but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 only defines campaign_id as a required string with no description, and the description does not explicitly discuss the parameter. However, the tool name and description make it clear that campaign_id identifies the campaign to pause, and the phrase 'running campaign' implies a constraint on the parameter value. This provides minimal added meaning beyond the schema.

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 a specific action ('Pause a running campaign') and differentiates from sibling tools by explaining that active calls finish and the campaign can be resumed, unlike stop_campaign. The verb 'pause' and the resource 'running campaign' are specific.

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 explicit use cases: throttle costs, investigate quality issues, or pause during off-hours. It also mentions resumption via start_campaign, giving clear guidance on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with stop_campaign for termination, so a slight gap remains.

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