update_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it describes the supervised write process, pre-write snapshot for rollback, validation, API application, and post-write verification. This is comprehensive and beyond minimal expectations.

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 well-structured with a short summary, process overview, and parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the parameter details are clearly separated. It is concise yet thorough, earning its length.

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 the complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is very complete for parameter semantics and process. However, it does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., updated campaign object or success confirmation), which would enhance completeness for an agent expecting a return value.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage). It explains mutual exclusivity of daily_budget and lifetime_budget, allowed status values, activation validation, ISO 8601 format for times, and comma-separated special_ad_categories. This fully compensates for the absence of schema-level 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 'Update an existing campaign' as the primary function, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_campaign or delete_campaign_structure by emphasizing it modifies an existing campaign.

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 implies the tool is for updating campaigns but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., use create_campaign for new campaigns, or delete for removal). No exclusion criteria or scenarios where this tool is inappropriate are mentioned.

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