set_campaign_status

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

Annotations already declare the write/idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value beyond them: pausing immediately blocks draft preparation and approval, and 'completed' is a terminal state. It does not say what happens to in-flight queued messages or whether 'completed' can be reverted, but the transition semantics are disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its value set, then transition rules. No filler, and every sentence 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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The transition rules are covered; only minor gaps remain (auth requirements, effect on queued actions, irreversibility of 'completed').

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% and there are no enums, so the description must compensate. It usefully enumerates the valid status values (draft, ready, paused, completed), which the schema lacks, but 'account' and 'campaign_id' remain completely undocumented in either place.

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 specific verb ('Set') plus resource ('local campaign status') and enumerates the four valid values, so an agent knows exactly what the tool mutates. The 'local' qualifier implicitly separates it from account-level siblings like pause_account_actions and set_account_active, but it never names an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clear operational context: pausing blocks preparation and approval of existing drafts, resume a paused campaign with 'ready', and 'completed' is terminal. That tells an agent how to sequence calls, though it states no explicit when-not-to-use conditions or sibling alternatives.

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