update_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one useful trait—'Preview by default'—but it does not explain what preview returns, whether setting execute=true actually mutates the campaign, whether changes are reversible, or what permissions are required.

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 appropriately short and front-loads the key default behavior in the second sentence. However, it is so terse that it approaches under-specification rather than efficient completeness.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and minimally documented parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the body_json payload shape, how path should be formatted, the role of execute, or what the output schema represents. The output schema existing helps, but the operational context is still missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not define path, body_json, or execute beyond restating that updates happen. 'Campaign fields' hints at body_json's content but provides no structure or format guidance.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Update ad campaign fields.' It is reasonably distinct from sibling tools like create_campaign and list_campaigns, though 'fields' is somewhat vague about which fields are updatable.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_campaign or list_campaigns. The 'Preview by default' hint implies a dry-run workflow, but it never states when a preview is appropriate or when an actual update should be executed.

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