Update Campaign

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (readOnlyHint false, etc.), so the description must bear the transparency burden. It correctly implies mutation ('updates') and explains migration behavior. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authorization needs, or what happens to unmodified fields, which leaves gaps.

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 highly concise: two opening sentences then clear bullet points. It front-loads the main purpose and uses a structured Args list that is easy to parse. No wasted words.

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 has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core parameters and migration behavior. However, it does not indicate the return value (e.g., updated campaign object), which is a completeness gap for an update tool. The missing response_format parameter is minor but noted.

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?

With schema coverage at 43%, the description adds significant meaning: it specifies budget units (cents), provides enum options for status, and explains migration behavior. The response_format parameter is omitted from the description, but the schema already describes it well. Overall, the description compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 updates an existing campaign, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like meta_create_campaign and meta_delete_campaign by focusing on modification. The migration capability adds specificity.

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 partial updates ('Only provided fields are changed') and special migration usage ('Can also migrate...'). It provides clear context but could explicitly state when to use this tool over create or delete. No direct exclusions, but the context is sufficient.

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