update_campaign_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to active campaigns when paused/stopped, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It could be slightly improved by front-loading more critical information about behavioral aspects, but within its limited scope, it's appropriately concise.

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 that changes campaign states with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the implications of status changes, error conditions, response format, or how this interacts with other campaign operations. Given the complexity of campaign management and the many sibling tools, more context is needed.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'START' means versus other statuses, or provide context about campaign_id format or sourcing. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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 resource 'campaign status', specifying the exact status values (PAUSED, STOPPED, START). It distinguishes from siblings like update_campaign_settings or update_campaign_schedule by focusing specifically on status changes, though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 pause_lead, resume_lead, or other campaign update tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing considerations, or what happens when changing between specific statuses.

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