resume_rss_campaign

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

Annotations provide minimal behavioral cues, so the description fully covers key traits: authentication method (API key), concurrent request limit (10), respect for read-only/dry-run modes, and error conditions (returns error if not RSS campaign). No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise (two sentences for purpose plus structured Args/Returns), front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds necessary context without redundancy.

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 simplicity and available output schema, the description covers all relevant aspects: purpose, prerequisites, parameter details, authentication, rate limits, dry-run behavior, and error handling. No gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section clearly explains each parameter: campaign_id (where to obtain it) and account (optional, default behavior, reference to list_accounts). This adds significant value beyond raw 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 'Resume a paused RSS-driven campaign', specifying the action (resume) and resource (RSS campaign). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pause_rss_campaign and other campaign actions.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('restart an RSS campaign previously paused with pause_rss_campaign'), provides a prerequisite check ('Use get_campaign_details to confirm the campaign type'), and includes authentication and rate limit details.

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