update_campaign_actions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the critical replace-not-append semantics ('This replaces the existing list rather than appending to it'), which signals a destructive overwrite of existing actions. However, it omits permissions/auth requirements, side effects on already-running contacts, and reversibility.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by a compact args block. The replace-vs-append clarification earns its place. Slightly redundant restating of param names, but overall tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, the description covers the key replace semantics but leaves out permissions, the effect on active contacts, and the structure of the actions payload, which the schema also does not supply.

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. It adds meaning for both params: campaign_id is a UUID and actions is the full replacing list. It does not, however, describe the structure of an individual flow action object, leaving the array item shape undocumented.

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: 'Replace the flow actions a campaign runs for each contact.' This is more precise than the sibling update_campaign because it scopes to the campaign's flow actions. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from update_campaign or update_flow, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance and never names an alternative. An agent cannot tell from the text whether this is the right tool versus update_campaign or update_flow; the connection between this tool and campaigns is only inferable from the name.

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