vast_update_campaign_assignment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Update' without mentioning side effects, required parameters beyond schema, whether it's a partial or full update, permissions needed, or impact on ad serving. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the bare action.

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 unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and to the point, though it might be too terse for full transparency. It earns its place but leaves out important details, which is a trade-off between conciseness and completeness.

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?

Given the tool's context (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling update tools), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or how this tool fits into the workflow. The schema covers parameters, but the overall operational context is missing, making this a minimally viable but incomplete description.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (id, active, ad_item, campaign) having a clear description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the resource name, so 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 'Update a VAST campaign assignment' uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('VAST campaign assignment'), clearly indicating the action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'vast42_update_campaign_assignment' or other update operations, so it lacks some context for distinguishing among similar tools.

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 create/delete campaign assignment tools or the vast42 variant. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues are provided; the usage is only implied by the verb 'Update'.

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