Update Campaign

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the return value ('Updated campaign details') and does not elaborate on side effects, validation, or failure behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line action statement, an Args block, and a Returns line. It avoids fluff, though the Args section is largely duplicative of the schema.

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?

The tool is simple: two required string parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema. The description explains what it updates, what the parameters are, and what is returned. This is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, though it lacks explicit usage-contrast 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 description coverage is 100%, and the description simply restates the same parameter names, types, and required flags already present in the input schema. It adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('existing campaign'), and a specific field ('name'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like newsbreak_update_campaign_status and newsbreak_create_campaign.

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 makes it clear this is for renaming a campaign, so usage is implied rather than explicit. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from sibling tool names.

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