Update Campaign

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

The description discloses that the operation performs a partial update and notes that migration keeps the original campaign ID. Since annotations are all false (no idempotent, destructive, or read-only hints), the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it does not elaborate on potential side effects (e.g., archiving a campaign), idempotency, or error outcomes. It is not contradictory, but it is incomplete.

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 concise and front-loads the primary action. The Args list is well-structured and readable, though it partially duplicates the schema. It is not overly verbose, and every sentence adds information (e.g., partial update, migration option, parameter meanings). The structure is clear and easy to scan.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no helpful annotations, the description covers parameter semantics and the core behavior, but it lacks guidance on when to use the dedicated migration tool instead, and it does not describe the return value or error handling. It is adequate for basic invocation but missing context that would help an agent choose this tool over the migration sibling.

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?

The description provides explicit descriptions for all parameters except response_format, including budget units ('in cents'), enum values for status, and the migration flag behavior. The schema lacks descriptions for several parameters (name, status, daily_budget, lifetime_budget), so the description compensates well, though it omits response_format which is already described in the schema. The added detail goes beyond the schema, making it valuable.

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 and explicitly notes that only provided fields are changed, which is specific and distinguishes it from create/delete tools. However, it also mentions the option to migrate to Advantage+ Shopping, and there is a dedicated sibling tool (meta_migrate_campaign_to_advantage_plus) that could cause confusion about the primary purpose. The update verb and resource are clear, but the migration mention creates a minor blur.

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 explains partial-update behavior ('Only provided fields are changed') which implies usage for modifying existing campaigns, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the dedicated migration tool or other campaign tools. It also does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites, so the agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

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