edit_campaign

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Idempotent' and 'Modifies existing record,' which are redundant with annotations. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects) are disclosed.

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 brief and front-loaded with key information (icon, HTTP method, purpose). It is efficient but could be slightly more concise without losing meaning.

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 write operation with many parameters, the description lacks information about return values, error handling, or optional parameters. Annotations compensate for idempotency, but completeness is average.

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 50%; most body parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no further detail about parameters, relying on the schema. The 'id' parameter is not described but is implied by context.

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 edits/modifies an existing campaign, using 'Edit campaign' and 'Modifies an existing record in place.' It distinguishes itself from create or delete tools among siblings.

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 indicates the tool is for modifying an existing campaign, and mentions idempotency. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes the purpose clear.

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