Update campaign

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It hints at full-replacement semantics ('send the full campaign object') but does not explain side effects, error behavior, auth requirements, or that missing fields may be reset. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, tightly written sentence that immediately conveys the essential operation and the key requirement. Every word earns its place, with no filler or 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?

For a tool with a nested, arbitrary-property object and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the structure of the 'campaign' object, what happens on success or failure, or the role of 'campaignId'. An agent would have insufficient information to construct a valid request without external guidance.

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 50% (only 'campaign' has a description). The description clarifies that 'campaign' must be the full object, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it provides no additional context for 'campaignId', which is described only as required in the schema without any description. The added value is partial.

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 ('a campaign'), and specifies that it requires the full campaign object, distinguishing it from create or delete operations. It's specific and not a tautology.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_campaign or delete_campaign. It does not mention conditions, alternatives, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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