Set a campaign status (pause, resume, archive)

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

The description discloses important behavior beyond the annotations: it is a WRITE operation and defaults to a dry run unless confirm is true. This aligns with readOnlyHint=false and adds meaningful execution context, though consequences of each status change and permission requirements are not described.

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 tight sentence with the core action and endpoint front-loaded, followed by the critical dry-run behavior. There is no unnecessary wording.

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 four parameters, a nested body object, and minimal annotations, but the description covers only the high-level action and dry-run semantics. It is adequate for a status-setter but leaves gaps around id semantics, status enum coverage, and the effects of destructive statuses like archived or deleted.

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 50%, with confirm and idempotencyKey already documented in the schema. The description adds some meaning by naming actions like pause, resume, and archive, but it does not explain the id parameter or fully map those actions to the enum values (active, paused, archived, deleted, pending).

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 states a clear verb and resource: set a campaign status, with explicit examples (pause, resume, archive) and the POST endpoint. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like campaigns_update or campaigns_create.

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 gives operational usage guidance for execution: it is a write operation, dry run by default, and requires confirm: true to execute. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus campaigns_update or campaigns_get, leaving alternative selection implied.

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