update_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing campaign' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens if only some fields are provided. It lacks critical behavioral context for a write operation with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple update operation and front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the update does beyond the basic action, what values 'status' can take, whether all fields are optional besides campaign_id, or what the tool returns. For a 3-parameter write operation with zero structured context, more detail is needed.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (campaign_id, name, status) adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, constraints, or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Update an existing campaign' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('campaign'), but it's vague about what specifically gets updated. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_account' or 'update_lead' beyond the resource name, nor does it specify which campaign attributes can be modified beyond what the schema shows.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing campaign ID), when not to use it, or how it relates to siblings like 'create_campaign' or 'get_campaign'. The description alone gives no context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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