Update a campaign's metadata, lifecycle status, schedule, budget, targeting, or project assignment to keep ad settings accurate and current.
Update campaign metadata, lifecycle status or project assignment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| ends_at | No | ||
| currency | No | ||
| metadata | No | ||
| tracking | No | ||
| objective | No | ||
| starts_at | No | ||
| targeting | No | ||
| project_id | No | ||
| campaign_id | Yes | ||
| daily_budget | No | ||
| budget_amount | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly fails. It does not state whether this is a partial (PATCH) or full-replace update, whether omitted fields are cleared or preserved, whether status transitions like 'archived' are reversible, or what permissions are required. Only the word 'Update' signals mutation.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though efficiency here comes at the cost of the detail the tool actually needs.
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 14-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema and zero schema description coverage, one sentence is far too thin. An agent cannot determine update semantics, field-level meaning, or side effects from this definition.
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?
With 14 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate and does not. It gestures at three parameter groups ('metadata', 'lifecycle status', 'project assignment') but never explains formats for dates, currency codes, budget semantics (daily_budget vs budget_amount), the objective/targeting enums, or the meaning of nullable 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?
Specific verb+resource ('Update campaign metadata, lifecycle status or project assignment') that clearly separates it from ads_campaign_create, ads_campaign_get and ads_campaign_list. However, the enumerated scope understates the tool: budget, objective, targeting, currency and schedule fields are not mentioned, so the stated purpose is narrower than reality.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus ads_campaign_create or the platform-specific writers (ads_yandex_direct_create_campaign, ads_telegram_ads_api_set_ad_paused). No prerequisites, no note on whether the campaign must already exist, and no mention of whether partial updates are allowed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.