Update specific campaign fields—name, status, daily or lifetime budget—by passing the campaign ID and only the values to change. Unprovided fields stay intact.
Update an existing campaign. Only provided fields will be updated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New campaign name | |
| status | No | New status | |
| campaignId | Yes | Campaign ID to update | |
| dailyBudget | No | New daily budget in cents | |
| lifetimeBudget | No | New lifetime budget in cents |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a mutating operation on an existing campaign and the patching behavior of only updating provided fields. However, it does not disclose return values, permission requirements, or side effects when invalid fields or campaign IDs are supplied.
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 two short sentences with no redundant wording. The primary action is stated first, and the partial-update behavior is added as a concise, useful qualifier.
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 description and schema together cover the essential call mechanics: which campaign to update and which fields can change. However, without an output schema or additional context, the agent cannot know the return format, and the description does not address overlap with specialized status-change siblings like pauseCampaign and activateCampaign.
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 documents each parameter. The description adds meaningful parameter semantics by stating that only provided fields are updated, which clarifies how optional parameters are applied. This goes beyond what the schema alone states.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Update an existing campaign.' It also adds 'Only provided fields will be updated,' which clarifies the update scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pauseCampaign or activateCampaign, which also modify campaign state.
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 alternatives. It does not mention that status-specific operations like pausing or activating might be better handled by dedicated siblings, nor does it state prerequisites or expected usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.