update_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key partial-update behavior, which is valuable. However, it does not mention permission requirements, idempotency, side effects on existing fields, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool, this is a notable 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and the key partial-update semantics. No wasted words, and the most important information appears immediately.

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?

For a tool with 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It covers the core update behavior but omits prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), response format, error scenarios, and guidance on how to construct the targeting object. The schema compensates for parameter semantics, but the description does not fully support an agent in anticipating consequences.

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 100%, so each parameter is individually documented. The description adds the conceptual 'partial update' behavior and groups fields into categories, but it does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. This aligns with the baseline of 3 when schema covers all parameters.

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 tool updates an existing LinkedIn campaign, enumerating specific fields (status, budget, name, targeting, bid amount) and contrasting with create/delete operations. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like create_campaign or update_campaign_group.

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 use for existing campaigns via 'updates an existing' and 'partial update', but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when to use this over update_campaign_group. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer it is for campaigns, not groups, but exclusions are not stated.

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