Update a VWO campaign

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by noting that 'Changes can affect a live experiment and its collected data,' aligning with the destructiveHint annotation. It also implies a partial-update behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences covering purpose, warning, and usage tip. No redundant or missing information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 (4 parameters, nested body, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: required fields, partial updates, and risk to live data. It could mention restrictions on field updates or prerequisites (e.g., campaign must exist), but overall it is sufficient for an 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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description significantly enriches parameter understanding. For 'body,' it explains the wrapper behavior and directs to external docs. For 'accountId' and 'workspaceName,' it clarifies usage and alternatives (e.g., never guess an id). This goes well beyond the schema's baseline.

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 action: 'Update the configuration of an existing campaign.' It uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing campaign'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like vwo_update_campaign_status or vwo_update_draft_campaigns by focusing on configuration changes. The warning about affecting live experiments further clarifies scope.

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 advises to 'Pass only the fields you intend to change,' which is a useful usage tip. However, it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vwo_update_campaign_status). The sibling tool names partially differentiate, but explicit guidance would improve clarity.

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