Update a VWO draft campaign

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that overwriting a draft does not affect visitors, which is useful safety context. Still, it omits other behavioral details like required permissions, reversibility, or side effects, so it only moderately supplements the 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 two concise sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and provides a clarifying safety note, making every word earn 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 tool's moderate complexity (4 params, 1 nested object) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers core behavior and safety. It does not explain return values or error scenarios, but that is not essential for an update tool with comprehensive schema descriptions.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions (e.g., body links to external docs, draftId references vwo_list_drafts, accountId/workspaceName handling). The tool description adds no new parameter information beyond the schema. At high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Update a draft campaign's configuration,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like vwo_update_campaign (for live campaigns) and vwo_delete_draft_campaigns, making the tool's unique purpose clear.

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 clarifies drafts are not live and 'does not affect visitors,' implying safe use for draft-only updates. The schema guidance to call vwo_list_drafts for the draft ID provides implicit context. However, it lacks explicit comparisons to other update tools (e.g., vwo_update_campaign) or when not to use it.

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