google_ads_campaigns_update

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: mutating operation, not automatically reversible, partial update semantics, return of updated record, and warning about learning period reset for bidding strategy changes. This is thorough and helps the agent understand consequences.

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 concise (4 sentences) with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and efficiently covers key aspects: operation type, partial update, return value, mutability warning, and alternative tool. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's mutation nature and 4 parameters, the description covers behavioral implications, rollback strategy, and parameter-specific warnings. It does not cover error handling or auth requirements, but is sufficient for typical usage. A score of 4 reflects it is nearly complete for its 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond schema by warning about learning period reset when changing bidding strategy and implying partial update applies to all parameters. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 tool updates settings on an existing campaign, specifies it's a partial update, and distinguishes from the sibling tool for status-only changes.

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 recommends using google_ads_campaigns_update_status for status-only changes, and advises recording before-state with mureo_state_action_log_append for potential rollback. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to guidance.

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