update_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. While 'Update' implies a mutation, the description does not state whether it is a partial or full update, what happens if the campaign does not exist, or any side effects. It adds almost no value beyond the tool name itself.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action. However, given the complexity of the tool, it could afford more detail without jeopardizing conciseness.

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?

This tool has 10 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, yet the description provides almost no contextual information. It does not explain what 'standard campaign' means, what fields are typically updated, or how this relates to other campaign operations. The description is grossly insufficient for an agent to make an informed invocation decision.

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 the schema already documents all 10 parameters. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema. Per the rubric, the baseline is 3, and the description neither enhances nor detracts from it.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('an existing standard campaign'). It distinguishes from create/get operations, but the term 'standard' is ambiguous and there is no explicit differentiation from sibling tools like vast_update_campaign or draft_update_campaign, which could also be relevant.

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 such as draft_update_campaign or vast_update_campaign. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios that would favor this tool over others.

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