Update Campaign

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose one important limitation (bidding_type cannot be updated), but it does not mention whether updates are partial, whether changes require elevated permissions, whether they are reversible, or what the operation returns. For a mutation tool 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?

Two compact sentences provide the core purpose and a notable caveat with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded and every phrase 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?

Given the simple, flat schema and full parameter descriptions, the description is minimally viable. It states what can be updated and one thing that cannot. Still, it omits sibling-tool routing and any return/response or permission context, leaving the agent to infer those from elsewhere.

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?

Because schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping the seven parameters into intuitive categories (budget, schedule, status, description) and explicitly warning about bidding_type, which is not present in the schema. This helps an agent map high-level update intent to specific 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 uses a clear verb-resource pair, 'Update campaign,' and enumerates the updatable fields: budget, schedule, status, or description. It also highlights that bidding_type cannot be updated, which sharpens its scope. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the closely-related set_campaign_state sibling, so it doesn't reach the top score.

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 when to use the tool: when a campaign's budget, schedule, status, or description needs changing. It does not, however, say when to prefer set_campaign_state for status-only changes or other sibling alternatives, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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