update_campaign

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

Without annotations, the description discloses behavioral traits: it takes pre-write snapshot for rollback, validates, applies, verifies post-write state. For status, it notes 'Activating requires confirmation-level validation'. This adds significant transparency.

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?

Description is concise: a brief paragraph explaining the process followed by a clear Args list. No wasted words, purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds value.

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?

Covers all parameter semantics and update behavior well, but missing what the function returns (e.g., updated campaign object or success status). With no output schema, this would be helpful. Otherwise comprehensive.

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 explain parameters. It adds mutual exclusivity for budgets, currency units, allowed statuses, ISO 8601 format for times, and special_ad_categories details. This fully compensates for schema gaps.

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' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_campaign and update_adset by focusing on campaign update.

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 usage for updating campaigns but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. It mentions 'Supervised write' but lacks direct comparison to sibling tools like create_campaign.

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