Update Campaign Status

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description earns credit for explaining what 'destructive' actually means here — 'running' triggers real sends to subscribers and 'paused'/'cancelled' stop an in-flight send. It does not cover irreversibility (whether a cancelled campaign can be restarted), valid transition rules, or whether a repeated 'running' call re-triggers sending, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the launch-path clarification placed second where it serves as motivation. Both sentences earn their place.

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 with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, trigger, and real-world effect adequately. The remaining gap is transition validity and reversibility, which an agent staging a launch/cancel sequence would want to know.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented and baseline is 3. The description adds operational meaning for the status values (running starts sending, paused/cancelled halt an in-flight send), but the schema's own enum description already covers the draft-to-scheduled/running launch path, so the marginal gain is modest.

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 and resource ('Changes a campaign's lifecycle status') and enumerates the concrete target states with their effects. It implicitly separates itself from listmonk_create_campaign by noting a created campaign stays a 'draft', but it never names the nearest sibling, listmonk_update_campaign, so an agent must infer that content edits go there.

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?

Explicitly says this is the launch path ('This is how campaigns are actually launched') and that creating alone leaves a draft, which tells the agent when to reach for it. It stops short of stating exclusions, e.g. that content/metadata changes belong to update_campaign or that a status change on a running campaign may need a pause first.

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