update_campaign_status

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. It explains the dry-run behavior ('Dry run unless confirm=True') and clarifies that 'REMOVED' means delete, which are critical for safe use. It does not detail return values or irreversible consequences beyond 'delete', but the main safety mechanism is disclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and statuses. It includes only essential details (status meanings, dry-run/confirm) and no redundant filler. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core behaviors: what statuses are allowed, that it defaults to a dry run, and that confirmation is required to execute. It lacks some edge-case details (e.g., error handling, prerequisites, whether REMOVED is reversible), but the essential usage context is complete for typical 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'status' parameter's allowed values and the 'confirm' parameter's role in enabling the actual update. It leaves 'customer_id' and 'campaign_id' implicit, but these are clear from the parameter names and the tool's purpose. This is meaningful added value beyond the minimal schema.

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 the action ('Set a campaign's status') and specifies the exact statuses ('ENABLED', 'PAUSED', 'REMOVED') with their meanings. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_ad_group_status, which targets ad groups rather than campaigns.

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 changing campaign status and includes semantics for each status, providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for ad groups use update_ad_group_status'), so it falls short of an explicit when/when-not, but the context is unambiguous.

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