mureo_state_upsert_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Atomically upsert', persistence of metrics for dashboard KPIs, and ad-level delivery status for diffing on the next run. It does not detail every side effect, but covers key behavioral aspects beyond a simple 'write' operation.

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 three sentences long and front-loads the core action. Each sentence adds meaning—purpose, metrics, ads—with no waste. It is slightly longer than necessary but remains efficient and well-organized.

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 complexity (nested objects, optional fields) and the rich input schema, the description is largely complete. It does not describe return values (there is no output schema), but for a state-upsert tool, that is arguably minor. The inclusion of use cases and optional field semantics makes it sufficiently complete.

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% and provides detailed descriptions for all parameters. The description adds extra semantic context for the 'metrics' and 'ads' parameters, explaining their purpose in persisting KPIs and recording external pauses, which goes beyond what the schema states.

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 'Atomically upsert a CampaignSnapshot into STATE.json (root campaigns array)', naming the resource (STATE.json), the action (upsert), and the scope (root campaigns array). It distinguishes itself from sibling mureo_state_* tools by specifying campaign snapshots specifically.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to keep STATE.json in sync with campaign metadata changes the agent observes via vendor MCPs or BYOD imports.' This tells the agent when to invoke it, though it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it.

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