update_campaign

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: updates are partial and non-destructive to omitted keys. It does not mention side effects, permission requirements, validation behavior, or whether the operation is reversible, but the partial-update disclosure is a genuine behavioral signal.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded in 'Update campaign properties,' and the critical partial-update behavior immediately follows. Every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It omits what campaign properties are supported, whether any values are validated or transformed, and any prerequisites for updating a campaign. An output schema exists, so return format is less of a concern, but the input-side knowledge gap remains significant.

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 for the input schema's empty `properties` object and vague `campaign_id` parameter. The description adds some meaning by indicating that the `properties` object contains keys to update, but it does not explain what valid campaign property keys exist, nested structures, or how campaign_id should be formatted. This leaves significant semantic gaps.

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 verb 'Update' and resource 'campaign properties,' distinguishing it from read-only and create siblings like get_campaign and create_campaign. The added phrase 'Only the keys you pass change' clarifies the partial-update semantics beyond a generic 'update campaign.' It is not quite a 5 because it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling by name.

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 phrase 'Only the keys you pass change' implies when to use this tool: update an existing campaign by passing only the properties to alter, leaving others untouched. However, there is no explicit guidance about prerequisites, such as the campaign needing to exist, or when to prefer create_campaign or other sibling tools. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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