Resubmit 10DLC campaign

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

Annotations indicate idempotent (true) and not read-only. Description adds error codes (404, 502) but doesn't detail side effects or required permissions. Since annotations cover key behaviors, the description adds moderate value.

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?

Three sentences, no redundancy. Purpose is front-loaded. Could be slightly more concise, but effectively communicates key points without waste.

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?

With one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks detail on the result of resubmission (e.g., campaign state change, expected response). Additional context would improve completeness.

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 single parameter 'id' is described with context: 'as returned by msg_list_campaigns / msg_create_campaign'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and requirement, guiding the agent on where to obtain the ID.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Resubmit'), the resource ('10DLC campaign'), and the context ('after fixing rejection reasons with msg_update_campaign'). Distinguishes from sibling tools like msg_update_campaign (modify) and msg_get_mno_status (check status).

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?

Explicitly advises checking status with msg_get_mno_status first, and mentions fixing rejection reasons with msg_update_campaign. This guides when to use the tool, though it doesn't list alternatives or contraindications.

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