ads_update_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool updates an existing campaign, disclosing nothing about whether updates are partial (PATCH-like) or full replacement, what happens to omitted fields like name or endDate, required permissions, idempotency, or failure behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 the verb front-loaded and no wasted words. The minor grammatical awkwardness of 'campaign settings' (rather than 'campaign's settings') is trivial and does not impede understanding.

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?

This is a write operation with a nested schema, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is one sentence. It omits what the response contains, whether updates apply atomically or partially, and behavior on invalid campaignId or customerId. An agent lacks enough context to anticipate side effects or validate success.

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 coverage is 67%: customerId and campaignId are described in the schema, but the nested 'updates' object has no schema description and is the most complex parameter. The description's phrase 'campaign settings' only vaguely maps to the updates object and adds no semantic detail such as budgetAmountMicros being in micros or endDate format expectations. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented nested parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Updates') and resource ('existing Google Ads campaign settings'), and the word 'existing' implicitly distinguishes it from ads_create_campaign while the update verb separates it from read-only siblings like ads_get_campaign and ads_list_campaigns. However, it never names a sibling explicitly and 'campaign settings' is slightly vague about scope, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains ads_create_campaign and ads_create_budget, which are natural alternatives for create-versus-update and budget scenarios, but the description never references them or states any exclusion conditions. An agent must guess when an existing campaign requires update rather than creation.

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