conduyt_update_drip_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It does not say whether this is a partial update (only supplied fields changed) vs. a full replace, what permissions are required, whether toggling isActive affects in-flight enrollments, or what happens on invalid provider/timezone values. Only the set of updatable concepts is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb+resource leads and the editable fields follow. Nothing in it could be removed without losing content.

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?

Parameter documentation is fully covered by the schema and there is no output schema to explain, so the core call mechanics are clear. What is missing is behavioral context for a 10-parameter mutator with no annotations: partial-update semantics and the side effects of activation changes on existing enrollments.

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 100%, so every one of the 10 parameters is already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description merely groups them into 'name, schedule, provider, or activation status' and adds no semantics the schema lacks (e.g., valid ranges for sendStartHour/sendEndHour, meaning of stepDelays).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a drip campaign') and enumerates the editable field groups (name, schedule, provider, activation status), which cleanly separates it from conduyt_create_drip_campaign, conduyt_get_drip_campaign, and conduyt_list_drip_campaigns. It does not explicitly name any sibling as an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Update' — the agent can infer this is for modifying an existing campaign rather than creating one. But there is no statement of prerequisites (the required campaign id must already exist), no when-not-to-use guidance, and no pointer to create_drip_campaign for new campaigns.

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