Update campaign

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/open-world profile, but the description adds substantial undisclosed behavior: partial update semantics, the destructive two-step archive-then-delete workflow with a timing gate, and micro-currency units. It does not mention auth/permission needs, and the delete capability sits in some tension with destructiveHint=false, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and partial-update rule, then the delete/archive workflow, then the currency footnote. Each sentence carries operational information; the '(archive now, delete later)' parenthetical reinforces rather than pads.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and a free-form nested data object, the description covers the essentials an agent needs (what to pass, how to delete/archive, currency units). It leaves some gaps around field-level constraints and immutability, but no return-value explanation is required since no output schema exists.

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 only 50% (campaign_id is undocumented), so the description must compensate, and it does so usefully: it explains configured_status values and their delete/archive effect, and clarifies that money fields use micro-currency (1 USD = 1000000). It does not address the other data fields (funding_instrument_id, schedule, bid_strategy, objective, etc.).

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Update a campaign') and immediately adds the partial-update rule ('Pass only the fields to change'), which is a real scoping statement. It does not explicitly name a sibling (e.g., how it differs from reddit_ads_set_status or reddit_ads_create_campaign), so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives concrete usage conditions: only pass changed fields, and to delete/archive set configured_status to DELETED/ARCHIVED. It also spells out Reddit's prerequisite ordering (archive first, 3-hour wait). It stops short of naming alternative tools (e.g., set_status) or stating when-not to use this one.

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