Update Campaign

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

Annotations indicate readOnly=false and destructive=false. The description adds valuable behavior: partial patch semantics and an immutable field (objective). This goes beyond the schema and annotations without contradicting them. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but with annotations carrying safety signals, this is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The description is front-loaded with the core action and immediately provides the essential usage rule. Every sentence earns its place.

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 update tool with a well-defined schema, the description covers the crucial constraints: partial update and immutability of objective. There is no output schema, but the description could mention return format; however, it is not necessary for typical update tools. Sibling context and annotations cover most remaining needs.

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 input schema provides descriptions for 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying that only fields needing change should be sent, and that objective cannot be changed (not even listed as a parameter). This helps the agent understand the intended usage of optional fields.

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,' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_campaign and delete_campaign, and adds scope with 'Send only the fields you want to change.' This is unambiguous and specific.

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 gives practical usage guidance: 'Send only the fields you want to change' and 'Cannot change objective after creation.' It implies the tool is for partial updates to existing campaigns. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the context makes it clear when to use this tool versus create/delete.

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