draft_update_campaign_assignment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Update'. It does not mention whether this is a partial or full update, what happens if the draft is already published, what fields are updatable, or whether the changes are reversible. This is insufficient for a mutation tool lacking annotation context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose with no wasted words. It is concise and easily scannable, earning full credit for structure and brevity.

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?

The tool has only two parameters but no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to provide more behavioral and usage context. The one-line description leaves out return value format, side effects, and the specific meaning of the 'draft' object. This is inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in all circumstances.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself clearly documents 'id' as the draft campaign assignment ID and 'draft' as an object containing fields to update. The description is consistent with this and does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 'Update an existing draft campaign assignment' uses the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'draft campaign assignment', clearly distinguishing it from create/delete variants. It could be more explicit about which assignments it applies to, but 'draft' in the name and description provides enough differentiation from sibling tools like update_campaign_assignment and vast_update_campaign_assignment.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as draft_create_campaign_assignment or vast_update_campaign_assignment. It neither states prerequisites, nor does it explain what 'draft' means in this context, leaving the agent to infer intended use from the tool name alone.

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