growsurf_update_campaign

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description complements these by disclosing partial-update behavior ('Only the fields you send are changed'), listing immutable fields (type, urlId, currencyISO) and why, and detailing the side effects of the status transitions (publishing/resuming vs. ending the program), which maps to the destructiveHint. It does not contradict the 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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: main scope, partial-update semantics, immutability rationale, and routing to alternative tools plus campaignId fallback. It is dense but not verbose, with the primary purpose front-loaded. Slightly long, yet no sentence is filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The tool's moderate complexity — partial updates, lifecycle transitions with side effects, immutability, and a fallback target id — is covered well. The only minor gap is that the destructive nature of COMPLETE (ending a program) is phrased softly, but the annotations' destructiveHint=true covers that signal.

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 40% (name, companyName, companyLogoImageUrl lack descriptions). The description compensates meaningfully: it groups those three as identity fields, explains that only sent fields are changed (which affects how each param should be used), and clarifies why type/urlId/currencyISO are absent from the schema (immutability, backed by additionalProperties:false). Status and campaignId are already documented in the schema, so the description's short echo adds marginal value there.

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 precise verb (update) plus the exact resource scope (campaign identity and lifecycle fields: name, companyName, companyLogoImageUrl, status). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the dedicated config sub-resource tools (design, emails, options, installation), so an agent can separate it from the sibling update_* tools without inspecting schemas. The status values are tied to concrete lifecycle meanings (publish/resume vs. end).

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 an explicit when-not-to-use rule: 'Editor-tab config (design, emails, options, installation) is edited with the dedicated config sub-resource tools, not here,' which routes the agent to the correct alternative set. It also explains the lifecycle semantics (IN_PROGRESS to publish/resume, COMPLETE to end) and the campaignId fallback behavior, giving clear context for call selection.

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