set_campaign_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the operation is a state change, requires confirmation to execute, and defaults to a preview (dry_run) mode. This adequately informs the agent about the tool's behavior, though it could mention potential side effects (e.g., campaign visibility changes).

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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover purpose, prerequisites, and default behavior. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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 state-changing tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main action, prerequisites, and default behavior. However, it does not explain what happens after execution (e.g., return value or success indication), which would be helpful. Still, it is largely complete given the tool's context.

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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds high-level context (confirm required, dry_run default) but largely restates what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: to publish or disable an Interaction Studio campaign by updating its state. It specifies the exact actions (Published or Disabled) and the resource (campaign). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_campaigns or set_segment_enabled.

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 clear conditions for use: requires IS_WRITES_ENABLED=true and confirm=true for execution, and defaults to dry_run for preview. It implicitly guides when to use (publish/disable) but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools makes the usage scope clear.

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