set_campaign_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals the two-phase nature of the operation and clarifies the status field values. It does not disclose error behavior, permissions, or side effects beyond the state change, but the core preview-confirm behavior is well explained.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and follows with a clean argument list. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and parameters. It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites, error handling, or confirmation semantics beyond 'token from preview,' but overall it provides enough context for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: customer_id, campaign_id, status (with valid values), and confirm_token (with its purpose and omission rule). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema definitions.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Pause or enable a campaign.' It is distinct from sibling tools like list_campaigns or update_campaign_budget, leaving no ambiguity about what action this tool performs.

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 context on the two-phase workflow ('preview, then confirm') and explicitly instructs to omit confirm_token for a preview. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow guidance is sufficient for correct usage.

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