update_campaign_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Update' without mentioning that REMOVED is likely destructive or irreversible, whether permissions are required, or how the API responds. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it borders on under-specification; still, conciseness itself is excellent.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about side effects, especially the implications of setting status to REMOVED, and any required permissions. The current description leaves the agent without essential behavioral information, making it incomplete for safe 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with each parameter described (customerId, campaignId, status). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; the enum values in the description duplicate the schema's enum. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema already fully documents parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('campaign status'), and lists the allowed status values (ENABLED, PAUSED, REMOVED), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_campaign or get_campaigns. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever a campaign's status needs to be changed to one of the three listed values. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's name and the status enum provide clear context, making it easy for an agent to select it over siblings.

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