update_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'update' which implies mutation, but does not reveal side effects (e.g., archiving stops ads), required permissions, atomicity, or impact on other fields. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 concise in length, but it is not entirely accurate (omits UNARCHIVE from status list). It could be restructured to be more precise without sacrificing conciseness. Every word serves a purpose, but the omission reduces clarity.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, error handling, prerequisites, or consequences of actions (e.g., what happens upon archive). For a mutation tool with multiple parameters, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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% (each parameter has a description). The tool description adds marginal value by listing the fields in plain language, but does not provide additional context beyond the schema. The schema already covers the parameter meanings adequately, meeting the baseline for full coverage.

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 action (update) and resource (campaign), and lists the specific fields that can be updated: name, budget, status. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_campaign and list_campaigns. However, the status values listed in parentheses (SUSPEND/RESUME/ARCHIVE) are incomplete compared to the schema which also includes UNARCHIVE, causing minor inconsistency.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_campaign for reading, or other tools). It does not provide context on prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it. The description implies usage for modifying existing campaigns but lacks explicit direction.

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