bulk_update_campaign_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the operation is destructive-capable (delete), that dry_run defaults to True, and that a second explicit confirm=True flag is required to actually apply changes. It stops short of stating irreversibility of deletion or how many IDs are allowed per call.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the action, then the enum constraint, then the safety workflow in the order an agent needs it. No filler sentences.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the risky parts (status values, dry-run default, confirmation gate). The remaining gaps are the campaign_ids format/limits and what a dry run returns.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents three of four parameters meaningfully: the status enum values (PAUSED/ACTIVE/DELETED), dry_run's default of True, and confirm's role as the second gate. Only campaign_ids lacks format/limit detail.

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 set (pause, activate, delete) plus resource (campaigns) and the defining scope qualifier 'Bulk', which separates it from the single-campaign siblings pause_campaign/activate_campaign/delete_campaign. An agent can route bulk vs. single operations without opening a schema.

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?

It gives an explicit operating procedure: review the campaign IDs, then set dry_run=False and confirm=True. What is missing is a direct statement of when to prefer this over the single-campaign siblings, but the bulk scope plus the confirmation workflow gives clear context.

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