pause_campaign

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does add genuinely non-obvious behavior: queued sends stop, and emails already handed to the provider still arrive (an irreversible side effect). It does not cover auth/permission requirements or whether the pause is reversible beyond relaunching.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the non-obvious provider caveat is placed second where it is most needed. The first and second sentences run together without punctuation, a minor readability flaw.

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 one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the behavioral disclosure is solid but the description omits any reference to the required identifier and to return/error behavior on an already-paused or nonexistent campaign.

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?

The single required 'id' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, so the agent gets no guidance on what identifier is expected (campaign id vs. something else). With low schema coverage the description is supposed to compensate and does not.

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 (pause) and resource (campaign) with the precondition that it is 'running'. It implies the counterpart action ('until it is launched again') which maps to the sibling launch_campaign, though it never names that tool explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the phrase 'until it is launched again' tells the agent resumption goes through launch, and the sibling list contains launch_campaign for that. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use framing and no named alternative.

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