update_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions that it returns a JSON object with update result. As a mutation tool, it does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or reversibility of changes. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 well-structured, with a brief purpose statement followed by Args, Returns, and Examples sections. Every sentence earns its place, and the format is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Despite missing usage guidelines and behavioral details, the description provides purpose, parameter semantics, and examples for a simple 3-parameter update tool. The output schema exists, so the return value note is sufficient. Overall, it is fairly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden of parameter semantics. The Args section clearly explains campaign_id as the ID to update, url as the new website URL, and company as the new company name, adding meaningful context beyond the raw schema.

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 starts with 'Update an existing campaign (client),' which clearly states the action (update) and the resource (campaign). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like create_campaign and delete_campaign by specifying 'existing,' leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 implies usage through the word 'existing' and the nature of the tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It lacks any reference to sibling tools such as get_campaign, create_campaign, or delete_campaign, so the guidance is only implicit.

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