update_campaign_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lists state transitions but omits critical behavioral details: the 'confirmed' flag required for certain statuses, the idempotency key for retries, and any side effects or reversibility. This leaves the agent unaware of constraints.

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, terse sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key actions.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is under-specified. It fails to mention the confirmation requirement or idempotency behavior, which are essential for correct invocation and safe retries. The agent is left guessing about side effects.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify how status values map to actions or the confirmed requirement.

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 specifies the tool's action ('Pause, resume, activate, or archive') on a specific resource ('a campaign'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_campaign, which likely handles other campaign settings.

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 this tool is for changing campaign status, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternative tools (e.g., update_campaign) or state when not to use it. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

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