direct_check_changes

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

The 'READ:' prefix signals a non-mutating operation, which is useful given no annotations are provided. However, the description gives no detail about return format, pagination, or behavior with invalid timestamps or empty results, leaving transparency incomplete.

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 sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the read intent and API method, then explains the core functionality in a compact phrase.

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 simple change-check tool, the description covers the main purpose but omits the role of the project and campaign_ids parameters, which are likely filters. Without an output schema, it also leaves the exact return value ambiguous, though 'which campaigns changed' gives a general sense.

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?

The schema already describes project and timestamp, and the tool description adds that timestamp can be in ISO or API format. With 67% schema coverage, the description provides some additional meaning for the timestamp parameter but does not clarify the optional campaign_ids filter or its effect on the results.

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 tool reads changes to campaigns since a given timestamp, using a distinct 'READ:' prefix and the API method name changes.checkCampaigns. It distinguishes from sibling tools like direct_list_campaigns by focusing on detecting changes rather than listing or fetching. The verb+resource combination is specific.

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 usage for detecting campaign modifications since the last check timestamp, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over direct_list_campaigns or direct_get_campaign, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. The guidance is implicit in the wording 'which campaigns changed since Timestamp' rather than explicit.

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