update_campaign_assignment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'update' without explaining whether this is a partial update (PATCH) or full replacement (PUT), what happens to unspecified fields, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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 that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It clearly states the primary purpose, though it may be under-specified for a tool with 10 parameters. Still, as a concise statement of purpose, it earns a high score.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 10 parameters, but the description gives only a minimal one-liner. It lacks context about return values, partial update behavior, required permissions, or any limitations. This is inadequate for an update operation in a complex API.

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% coverage, with descriptions for all 10 parameters, so the schema already provides comprehensive parameter semantics. The description adds no additional parameter-level context, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource (campaign assignment), and specifies 'existing' to indicate this is not for creating. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like vast_update_campaign_assignment, but the name itself provides some disambiguation.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_campaign_assignment or the vast/draft variants. The description offers no context about common use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where this should be preferred.

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