activateCampaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the action but does not describe preconditions (e.g., whether the campaign must be paused), side effects, permission requirements, or what happens if the campaign is already active. The 'paused' qualifier implies a precondition but does not elaborate on failure behavior. 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 concise sentence with no fluff, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the action. However, it is so minimal that it omits critical usage and behavioral details, which slightly reduces the score. It earns its place but could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It does state the intended target ('paused campaign'), which hints at a precondition. However, it fails to mention what happens when the campaign is not paused, any side effects, or how it differs from bulk activation. Given the simplicity, this is a moderate gap rather than a severe one.

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 covers the single parameter with a description 'Campaign ID to activate' at 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description neither improves nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 action ('Activate') and the resource ('a paused campaign'), which is specific and not a tautology. It distinguishes from bulk operations by using the singular 'a', though it does not explicitly name alternatives like bulkActivateCampaigns. The purpose is clear and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention that this is for a single campaign as opposed to bulkActivateCampaigns, nor does it explain the difference from pauseCampaign. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer.

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