Resume a campaign

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false (a mutation), and the description adds a real behavioral trait beyond that: a confirmation step is expected. But it omits other mutation-relevant context — what is required to target the campaign, whether resuming is reversible, and whether it can fail if the campaign is not paused.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it could spend a few more words on the confirmation requirement without bloat.

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?

For a mutation tool with no parameters, no output schema, and only readOnlyHint=false, the description should clarify how the campaign is identified (since no identifier parameter exists) and what happens on failure. Instead it says nothing about targeting, making it materially incomplete for correct invocation.

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 schema declares zero parameters (additionalProperties true, coverage 100%), so per the baseline for parameterless tools this defaults to 4. The description adds no parameter detail, and notably does not explain how the target campaign is identified, but with no declared params there is little to document.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair ('Turn a paused campaign back on') and names the precondition state (paused), which distinguishes it from its inverse sibling pause_campaign. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling or scope limits, but an agent can identify the operation unambiguously.

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 phrase 'after you confirm' implies a confirmation gate before invoking, which is genuine usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of pause_campaign as the inverse, and no stated prerequisite that the campaign must currently be paused.

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