meta_update_campaign

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

The description labels the tool as a [WRITE] operation and notes that ARCHIVED is reversible while DELETED is not. With no annotations provided, it carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it does not cover potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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. The first sentence states the purpose and enumerates values, and the second gives a key piece of advice. No unnecessary 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the core functionality and provides a usage preference. It lacks context on where to get campaignId or any prerequisites, but the core operation is clear.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by listing the valid status enum options. However, it does not explain the 'campaignId' parameter (e.g., its format or source), so the schema and description together still leave a gap for that parameter.

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 action ('Change a campaign's status'), the resource ('campaign'), and enumerates the valid statuses (ACTIVE, PAUSED, ARCHIVED, DELETED). It distinguishes from sibling tools like meta_list_campaigns by specifying a write operation with a specific state change.

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 provides explicit guidance on preferring ARCHIVED over DELETED due to reversibility, which helps in decision-making. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention prerequisites like having a campaign ID from meta_list_campaigns.

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