Update 10DLC campaign

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description confirms it's an update (PUT) operation and mentions error codes, adding some behavioral context. No contradictions. However, it does not disclose additional traits like whether partial updates are supported or that only specified fields are updated. Acceptable given annotations.

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 (two sentences), front-loaded with the action and resource. It includes a practical example and error codes in a compact format. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for errors) but overall efficient with no wasted words.

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 28 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides a high-level example but does not explain common update patterns, which fields are typically modified, or the response behavior. The schema covers parameter details, but a quick-start guide would help. The error code list adds some completeness for error handling.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description briefly mentions 'sample messages or opt-in flow' as examples, but does not add significant semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., field descriptions). No parameter-specific guidance like 'sample1-sample5 are mutually exclusive' or validation rules.

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 'Update (PUT) one of your 10DLC campaigns', providing a specific verb and resource. It gives a concrete example of use (fixing sample messages after carrier rejection). While it implicitly distinguishes from siblings like msg_create_campaign by mentioning resubmission, it could explicitly differentiate from msg_update_brand. Overall clear purpose.

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 a specific use case: fixing sample messages or opt-in flow after a carrier rejection, then resubmitting with msg_resubmit_campaign. This guides the agent on when to use this tool. It also lists error codes (INVALID_PAYLOAD, NOT_FOUND, TNIQ_ERROR) for troubleshooting. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools beyond resubmit.

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