update_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only restates the purpose and fields. It does not mention any side effects, whether confirmation is required, or how the update interacts with existing campaigns. The 'confirmed' parameter is in the schema, but the description itself lacks transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action and the key exclusion in an efficient manner.

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 complexity (7 params, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides the necessary pointer to the alternative tool but omits broader context such as whether the update is reversible, the need for confirmation, or idempotency implications. However, the rich schema descriptions cover parameter details, keeping the description minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond listing field names; it does not elaborate on parameter nuances, dependencies, or the significance of confirmed/idempotency_key beyond what the schema already states.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'campaign', and lists the specific fields that can be modified (name, config, steps, type). It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool update_campaign_status by redirecting status changes to that alternative.

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 an explicit alternative for status changes: 'For status changes (pause/resume/activate), use update_campaign_status instead.' This clearly indicates when not to use this tool and directs to the appropriate sibling.

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