update_spa_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses partial-update behavior and bidding strategy constraints, which is useful. However, it does not mention possible validation failures, response shape, or side effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity typical of mutation tools.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds unique value: purpose, partial-update behavior, and bidding constraints. No filler or repetition.

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 is a mutation with no output schema, and the description covers the core behavior and constraints. However, it does not describe the expected return value, error conditions, or prerequisites beyond the schema. It is adequate but has clear gaps for a full understanding.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable meaning beyond the schema by specifying that bidding_strategy.type accepts limited families (CPC/CPM), which is not evident from the schema (no enums). It also clarifies that only fields to change need be sent, enriching the body parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing SPA campaign'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_spa_campaign and get_spa_campaign_by_id. It also clarifies the partial-update nature, which adds precision.

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 implies when to use this tool (updating an existing campaign vs. creating) and provides specific guidance for changing bidding strategies, including allowed families (CPC vs CPM). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough.

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