Update a QR campaign

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world, so the description earns credit for adding semantics annotations can't express: archiving halts code creation while preserving history, and it is reversible via status 'active'. The qr:write scope requirement is also stated, which is a concrete precondition an agent needs. Remaining gap is that partial-update behavior and return values are not described.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the mutation surface, followed by the archive behavioral caveat and the auth scope. Nothing is padded; the only minor inefficiency is restating the status enum already present in the schema.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with zero schema description coverage and no output schema, the description covers intent, archive semantics and auth but leaves the identifier parameter and the constraint surface (URL scheme, name length, whether unspecified fields are left untouched) to inference. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent may hit at call time.

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%, so the description must compensate; it gives semantic meaning to name (rename), destinationUrl (destination) and status transitions, but campaignId is never explained and structural constraints from the schema (1-120 char name, https-only URL, UUID format) are not restated. The enum values quoted are already in the schema, so they add no new information.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ('Rename a QR campaign, change its destination, or change its status') and enumerates the mutable fields, so an agent knows exactly what the tool mutates. It doesn't name siblings such as create_qr_campaign or get_qr_campaign, but the resource and mutation scope make the distinction largely self-evident.

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 enumeration of the three change types, and the archive trade-off (stops code creation, keeps history, reversible) is useful context for choosing a status. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no statement about which fields are mutually exclusive or whether a single call can combine changes.

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