update_campaigns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It discloses the dry-run capability via confirm=False, which is good, but does not mention permissions, reversibility, side effects of omitting fields, or rate limits. The description does not contradict annotations (none present).

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 paragraphs: a one-line overview followed by a structured args list. It uses clear formatting, a money note for micros, and no filler sentences. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description thoroughly covers input parameters, but does not describe return values or output format since no output schema is provided. For a complex update tool, the omission of output details is a minor gap. Otherwise, context is complete.

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 input schema only defines campaigns as an array of objects and confirm as boolean with no nested details. The description provides full semantics for the nested fields: Id (required), Name, EndDate, DailyBudget, NegativeKeywords, and TextCampaign, including formats and examples. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 starts with 'Update campaign settings' which clearly states the verb and resource. It lists specific fields (name, dates, budget, negative keywords, strategy), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_campaigns, archive_campaigns, resume_campaigns, and suspend_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 clearly indicates when to use the confirm parameter (True to execute, False for dry-run). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., add_campaigns) or when not to use it. The absence of exclusions prevents a score of 5.

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