update_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. It does not disclose permissions, side effects, replacement semantics for mailboxes, reversibility, or what happens when the campaign id is invalid, leaving important behavioral context unstated.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, though the content is too thin for a 17-parameter update tool.

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, no output schema, and 17 parameters, the description is substantially incomplete. It omits update semantics, validation behavior, return expectations, and guidance on how the many options interact.

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?

There are 17 parameters with only 59% schema description coverage, and the description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond broad categories like schedule and mailboxes. It does not explain required id, replacement behavior for mailboxIds, date semantics, or the many boolean scheduling and tracking options beyond what partial schema descriptions already say.

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 names the resource and the main update categories: rename, schedule, mailboxes, and options. It is clear enough to identify an update operation on an existing campaign, but it does not contrast itself with siblings such as create_campaign, launch_campaign, or pause_campaign.

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?

It implies use on an existing campaign by saying 'a campaign,' but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not direct the agent to launch_campaign, pause_campaign, create_campaign, or set_sequence for related operations.

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