enable_meta_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action ('Activate'), outcome ('starts spending'), and a requirement ('Requires Starter plan or higher'), which are useful behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the campaign is already active, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first sentence states the purpose and outcome, and the second provides usage notes and requirements. It is front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose, usage, and requirements, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases or return values, which are important for an activation tool. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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 the 'campaign_id' parameter fully. The description adds marginal value by mentioning sources for the ID ('from create_meta_campaign or list_meta_campaigns'), but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Activate a paused Meta campaign'), the resource ('Meta campaign'), and the outcome ('so it starts spending'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'pause_meta_campaign' by specifying activation rather than pausing, and from 'create_meta_campaign' by targeting existing campaigns.

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 clear context on when to use it ('Activate a paused Meta campaign') and prerequisites ('Requires Starter plan or higher'), and hints at alternatives by mentioning 'campaign_id from create_meta_campaign or list_meta_campaigns'. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare directly with all siblings like 'enable_tiktok_campaign'.

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