update_campaign_content

Does 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. It mentions the default compact response and the verbose option, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is an overwrite operation (destructive), any permission requirements, or what happens if both html and template_id are provided. Some behavioral traits are disclosed, but not the full safety profile.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and includes both the core usage rule and the response format. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. It is highly efficient.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the main purpose, the either/or constraint, and the response behavior, which are the most critical aspects. It falls short of a perfect score because it omits edge-case behavior, such as validation rules or consequences of providing both parameters, and does not explicitly state that content is overwritten. Still, it is notably complete for a simple update tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so all parameters already have descriptions. The description adds the mutual exclusivity constraint ('Provide either html OR template_id'), which is a semantic enhancement, but the schema's phrase 'instead of raw HTML' for template_id already hints at this. Overall, the description adds marginal value beyond the schema without fully compensating for any gaps.

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 clearly states the action ('Set the HTML content or template') and the target resource ('a campaign'), using a specific verb that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_campaign, schedule_campaign, or send_campaign. It also indicates the key input choice (html vs template_id), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear usage guidance: 'Provide either html OR template_id' and explains the verbose parameter's effect on output. It implies the tool is for editing existing campaigns (as opposed to create_campaign, which is a sibling), though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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