Управление кампаниями

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety class is covered. The description goes beyond them by stating delete is irreversible and, importantly, that it fails for campaigns with accumulated statistics — a real operational constraint the annotations cannot convey.

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 front-loaded sentences: the action list first, then the warning. No filler, and the emoji flag efficiently surfaces the one destructive caveat.

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 batch mutation tool with fully covered params and annotations carrying the destructive profile, the essentials are present. It could mention per-campaign result handling or partial failure behavior, but that is a minor gap with no output schema to lean on.

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 enum values and campaign_ids are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description echoes the action list and adds the delete restriction, but adds little on the campaign_ids container (batch size, ordering, partial behavior) 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 names the resource (campaigns) and enumerates the specific batch actions (start, stop, archive, unarchive, delete), so the agent immediately understands it is a state-change tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself against update_campaign/create_campaign siblings, but the action list is unambiguous enough to distinguish it.

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 gives a concrete when-not rule: delete is unavailable for campaigns with accumulated statistics, and such a campaign can only be archived. That routing guidance is genuinely useful. It stops short of explaining when to reach for manage_campaigns versus update_campaign or list_campaigns.

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