Propose pausing or enabling a campaign by returning a pending plan that requires human approval before any status change is applied.
Propose pausing or enabling a campaign. Returns a pending plan; a person must approve it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| campaign_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which alone would not tell the agent that nothing changes immediately. The description adds the crucial behavioral fact that this returns a pending plan requiring human approval, materially improving the agent's understanding beyond structured fields.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key behavioral consequence. No filler or redundancy.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description does tell the agent the return is a pending plan. However, it leaves the workflow incomplete — nothing about how to retrieve or act on the plan, and no parameter detail for a 2-required-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage.
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 0% and both parameters are required, yet the description says nothing about campaign_id format or the meaning of the ENABLED/PAUSED enum values beyond what the schema already shows. With no schema prose to lean on, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (propose) and resource (campaign pause/enable status), and adds the outcome that a pending plan is produced. The resource naming naturally separates it from propose_budget_change and propose_undo, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.
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 via the approval workflow ('a person must approve it'), but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not point to get_plan/list_plans for tracking the resulting plan.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.