batch_replace_in_campaign_body

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

Annotations already flag the tool as destructive and non-idempotent, so the description's job is to add detail, which it does: pairs are applied sequentially so later pairs see earlier results, empty search strings are skipped, the body is saved only once, and nothing is written if no pair matches. That effectively softens the destructive hint into a conditional-write guarantee. It stops short of saying the original body text is overwritten irreversibly or what permissions/lookup failures look like.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The core action and its ordering guarantee lead, and the edge-case behavior (empty searches skipped, no-match means no save) follows — appropriately front-loaded.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers behavior, ordering, and conditional saving well. The remaining gap is the return value: with no output schema, the agent cannot know whether it gets a count of applied replacements, the resulting body, or a no-op indicator — worth one sentence.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by adding execution semantics the schema does not convey — cross-pair ordering effects (later pairs operate on earlier results) and the skip rule for empty search values, which is invisible in the schema since 'search' is just a required string.

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 verb (apply literal search/replace pairs), the target resource (a campaign's body), and the scope (several pairs, applied in order, saved once) — enough to distinguish it from the sibling replace_in_campaign_body. It does not, however, name the single-pair or regex siblings as alternatives, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 batched, ordered nature implies when to use it (multiple literal edits in one save), and the empty-search skipping rule is stated. But there is no explicit guidance to use replace_in_campaign_body for a single pair or regex_replace_in_campaign_body for pattern matching, and no preconditions are mentioned.

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