update_campaign_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'guarded write' and 'preview or set', implying potential mutation, but does not detail consequences, permissions, or what setting state entails. The stub note is useful but insufficient for a write 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 very concise, using a single line with brackets to convey essential context. No extraneous text, but could expand slightly on return values or state specifics without losing 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and stub context, but lacks detail on return values (no output schema) and the specific campaign type it targets. Given the complexity of 5 optional parameters and a write operation, it is somewhat under-specified.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the preview/set context that ties to the 'preview' and 'dry_run' parameters, but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Preview or set campaign state', specifying the verb and resource. The '[Ads / guarded write]' label adds context. However, it does not differentiate which campaign type (e.g., Sponsored Products) it applies to, especially given sibling tools like update_sb_campaign_state and update_sd_campaign_state.

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 provides limited guidance, only noting that it's a 'hosted endpoint only' and that the local server is a stub. It does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions for preview vs. set operations.

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