update_campaign_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update,' implying mutation, but gives no details on side effects, idempotency, or error behavior. This is insufficient for safe agent invocation.

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 sentence, very concise, and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified, sacrificing completeness for brevity. It could include more context without losing conciseness.

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 is a mutation with a nested object parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits return behavior, error states, and constraints on the 'updates' object, leaving the agent uncertain about how to use this tool effectively.

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 input schema has 2 parameters with 50% description coverage (only 'updates' has a vague description 'Fields to update'). The description adds no further meaning; it does not specify valid fields for 'updates' or the format of 'id.' The agent receives minimal guidance.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('an existing campaign group'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_campaign_group and list_campaign_groups. However, it lacks specificity about what 'update' entails (e.g., partial vs full replacement).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_campaign for campaigns) or any prerequisites. Given 37 siblings, the lack of context increases ambiguity for the agent.

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