kadam_adv_set_campaign_status

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

Annotations only supply idempotentHint=true, so the description carries most of the load and does so well: it discloses partial-failure semantics ('some IDs can be refused while others succeed') and clarifies the non-obvious 'restored' semantics as un-archiving. It stops short of stating permission requirements, behavior for campaigns already in the target status, or reversibility of archiving.

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 action, then invocation format, then the partial-success caveat. No filler or redundancy; 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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs to call it correctly, including per-campaign result variability. Only secondary details (authorization needs, effect on campaigns already in the target state) are absent, which is acceptable at this complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'ids' is documented as a comma-separated list and 'status' values are enumerated with the meaning of the ambiguous 'restored' spelled out. It adds no formatting/validation detail beyond that (e.g. ID formats, max batch size).

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 status') and resource ('campaigns') with explicit batch scope ('multiple campaigns'). It is clearly distinguishable from same-family siblings like kadam_adv_set_creative_status, kadam_adv_set_autorule_status and kadam_adv_set_campaign_folder_status 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?

The description gives invocation guidance (comma-separated IDs, allowed status values) but never states when to prefer this bulk tool over per-campaign paths such as kadam_adv_update_campaign, nor any exclusion or precondition. Usage is implied by the operation itself, not compared against alternatives.

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