stop_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: permanence, inability to restart, abandonment of uncalled contacts, completion of in-progress calls, and status marking. It lacks details like return formats or error handling, but the essential side effects are well covered.

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, stating the primary action in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds crucial information (irreversibility, contact handling, in-progress calls, alternative tool) without redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 simple single-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers all major aspects: what happens to the campaign, remaining contacts, in-progress calls, and the alternative tool. No critical information is missing for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 has only campaign_id with no description, and the description does not explicitly explain the parameter. However, the parameter is trivially understood from the tool name and context. The description implies the target campaign but does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema, so a mid-range score 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 clearly states the action: 'Stop a campaign permanently' and specifies the key effect: remaining contacts will not be called. It explicitly differentiates from sibling pause_campaign by noting this action is final, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives: 'Unlike pause, stopping is final' and 'Use pause_campaign instead if you might want to resume later.' This directly addresses the decision between stop and pause.

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