Pause, resume, or archive a campaign

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds the reason (resuming sends real messages) and the guardrail (confirm: true, rejected without it), plus required scopes, the redacted sensitivity level, and the server-side idempotency key fallback. That is substantial behavior 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?

Front-loaded with the action and the invalid-transition rule, then organized into short lines for scopes, idempotency, destructiveness, and workspace override. It carries some boilerplate (the long confirm semantics are duplicated in the schema), but nothing is confusing or padded.

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 6-parameter nested mutation with an output schema present, the description covers safety, auth scopes, retry semantics, and workspace scoping, so an agent can call it correctly. The main remaining gap is that it never clarifies the relationship to luca_campaigns_publish, which also touches campaign publication state.

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 coverage is 67% and the description compensates by explaining why confirm exists, what idempotencyKey does on retries, and what workspaceId/workspaceSlug override. The allowed status enum values are only implied by the verb list rather than spelled out, keeping this below a 5.

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 set of verbs (pause, resume, archive) against a clear resource (campaign), backed by the concrete endpoint POST /api/campaigns/{id}/status. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby luca_campaigns_publish sibling, which overlaps with the 'published' status value, so it falls short of a full 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?

Gives operational conditions: invalid transitions are rejected rather than forced, confirm: true is mandatory when the status is published, and an Idempotency-Key is expected. It does not, however, say when to prefer this tool over luca_campaigns_publish or luca_pause_cadence, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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