update_campaign

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

The description discloses partial-update behavior ('Only the fields you pass change'), which adds value beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false). However, it does not detail other behavioral traits such as idempotency, error handling, or the effect on unpassed fields. Annotations already indicate it's a write operation, so the burden is partially met.

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?

The description is extremely concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the key behavior. Every word earns its place without 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?

For a tool with 13 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal but sufficient. It conveys the essential behavior (partial update) and the output schema handles return value documentation. The description does not cover authentication or prerequisites, but those are often implicit. Overall, it is adequately complete for this complexity level.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. The schema itself is detailed, so no extra description is necessary.

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 clearly states the tool updates an existing campaign in place, specifying that only passed fields change. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_campaign and delete_campaign, and aligns with the tool name.

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 the tool is used when updating campaign fields, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like update_campaign_status or when not to use it. The usage is implied but not clearly contrasted with siblings.

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