campaigns_stop

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 merely states 'Stop a campaign' with no information about side effects, idempotency, whether the campaign can be resumed, or if it triggers immediate termination of ongoing processes. This is minimal transparency for a state-changing 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 extremely terse, consisting of a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks necessary context and reads more like a placeholder than a helpful tool description. The brevity comes at the expense of clarity and utility.

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 existence of many sibling campaign tools and the lack of annotations, this description is far from complete. It does not explain the tool's role in the campaign lifecycle, preconditions, or consequences. An output schema exists, but the description still needs to convey operational context, which it entirely omits.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter (campaign_id), and the description does not compensate. 'Stop a campaign' implies the campaign_id identifies the target, but that is already obvious from the parameter name. No additional meaning is added about parameter format, sourcing, or constraints.

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 'Stop' and a clear resource 'a campaign', which unambiguously identifies the core action. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like campaigns_pause or campaigns_delete, so it loses a point for missing sibling distinction.

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. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions (e.g., 'use campaigns_pause for temporary stops'). This is a clear gap given the many campaign-related sibling tools.

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