stop_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that it stops a campaign, implying a mutating operation, but does not mention whether the action is reversible, what happens to in-flight sends, or any permission requirements. The behavioral impact is barely disclosed.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It leads with the verb, specifies the target, and mentions the required input. Highly scannable and efficient.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and required input. However, it omits error conditions, reversibility, side effects, and response details. Given the lack of annotations, these gaps leave room for improvement, though the low complexity keeps it at a baseline level.

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 schema already documents the campaign_id parameter with a description ('CleverTap campaign ID'), giving 100% coverage. The description's phrase 'by its ID' adds no additional meaning about format, validation, or usage. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, this is a baseline score.

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 action ('Stop') and the target ('scheduled or running CleverTap campaign') with its identifier. It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools that send or create campaigns, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The verb+resource is specific and informative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites or conditions, and no exclusions. An agent is left to infer that it's for stopping campaigns, but nothing indicates scenarios where this tool would be inappropriate or where another tool should be used instead.

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