update_campaign

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

Annotations already declare it a destructive, idempotent write, and the description adds real context on top: only supplied fields are sent (partial update), omitted `lists` are preserved, and 'Does not send anything' rules out the most dangerous misreading. It does not warn that supplying `body` wholesale overwrites existing content, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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, all load-bearing: capabilities first, update semantics second, timing constraint and non-send guarantee last. Zero filler.

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 mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, partial-update behavior, list preservation, timing, and the non-send guarantee. Minor gaps remain (whether tags are replaced or appended), but nothing needed to call it safely is missing.

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 restates the partial-update rule and the `lists` omission behavior, which largely duplicates what the schema already says ('omit to keep the current lists'), rather than adding new syntax or format detail.

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 and resource ('Update a campaign') and enumerates the mutable fields, so the agent knows exactly what the tool touches. It is clearly distinct from update_subscriber/update_template by resource, but it does not distinguish itself from body-only siblings like replace_in_campaign_body or regex_replace_in_campaign_body.

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?

'Use it before sending, because Listmonk may reject edits once a campaign is running' gives an explicit timing condition that no structured field conveys. It stops short of naming alternatives (replace_in_campaign_body) for the body-only case, so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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