update_email_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, required permissions, or behavior when the campaign is already sent. The single statement 'Update an existing email campaign' is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 at one sentence, but it lacks essential information, making it under-specified rather than efficiently compact. Every sentence should earn its place; here, the single sentence adds minimal 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 complexity with 11 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or update semantics (e.g., partial vs. full update), leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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?

All 11 parameters have full descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing email campaign', clearly indicating the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_campaign_status' which also updates a campaign, lacking specificity on what aspects are updated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create_email_campaign' or 'update_campaign_status'. No context on prerequisites or typical scenarios is given.

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