Update campaign

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the genuinely useful draft-only constraint and the fact that sent mail cannot be edited. It stops short of clarifying replace-vs-merge semantics (whether omitted fields are cleared), which matters for a mutation with only 'id' required.

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 short labeled lines (Purpose / Not for / Returns / Use when) with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. Every line carries distinct information.

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?

Strong on routing and the draft-only rule, and annotations cover the safety profile, but for a 12-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage and no output schema the definition leaves most field semantics and the replace/merge contract unstated.

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 0% across 12 parameters, so the schema supplies no per-field meaning at all. The description names only four of them (subject, body, sender/from, audience) and does not explain id, name, type, replyTo, fromName, description, segmentId, audienceType, audienceCondition, or the enum values, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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?

'Replace a draft campaign's fields — subject, body, sender or audience' is a specific verb plus resource with scope, and it cleanly distinguishes this from plunk_create_campaign, plunk_duplicate_campaign and plunk_send_campaign without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Revising a draft before it is sent') and when-not ('A campaign that has already gone out... duplicate it instead with plunk_duplicate_campaign'), naming the exact alternative to route to. Nothing is left to inference.

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