draft_update_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but only says 'Update...' – a bare statement of mutation. It does not disclose whether this saves/publishes the draft, requires existing campaign, what fields are affected, or any side effects, so it fails to add meaningful transparency beyond the tool's name.

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?

Eight words in one sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No filler or redundant phrasing – it's maximally concise.

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?

Despite having a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description provides only a minimal statement. It doesn't explain the 'draft' workflow, what a 'standard campaign' is, or the effect of updating a draft, leaving critical context missing for a mutation tool in a large API with many draft variants.

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% and both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline without adding value.

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?

Clear verb 'Update' and noun 'existing draft standard campaign' indicate the operation and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like draft_save_campaign or the non-draft update_campaign, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific variant is preferred.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as draft_create_campaign, draft_save_campaign, or update_campaign. The one-sentence description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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