Modify campaign parameters like name, schedule, and sequences to correct errors or reflect new strategy. Applies changes directly to the campaign.
Patch campaign settings (name, campaign_schedule, sequences, ...). HIGH_WRITE.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| campaign_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'HIGH_WRITE' signals a high-impact mutation but is undefined jargon and does not explain whether confirmation is required, whether changes are reversible, or what side effects may occur.
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 compact and front-loaded, with every phrase contributing either the action, examples, or a risk signal. However, the cryptic 'HIGH_WRITE' tag is not self-explanatory and could be replaced with plain-language guidance.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, this description is insufficient. It omits the purpose of the confirm flag, the meaning of 'fields', and any return or error behavior, leaving an agent to guess at important invocation details.
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. It adds value by listing example field keys like name and campaign_schedule, but it does not explain the 'fields' object structure or the 'confirm' parameter, which is left entirely ambiguous.
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 uses a specific verb 'Patch' with a clear resource 'campaign settings' and provides concrete examples of updatable fields. This distinguishes it from lifecycle tools like launch_campaign and pause_campaign, though it could more explicitly state that this is for existing campaigns only.
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 implies a usage context—modifying campaign settings—but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over create_campaign, launch_campaign, pause_campaign, or update_account. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.