Smartlead: update campaign status

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by specifying exact safety traits: no read-only, may consume credits, modifies remote state, can send email, destructive. It also discloses the endpoint, mentions the permanent nature of STOPPED, and clarifies the 'START' vs 'ACTIVE' naming. This provides deeper behavioral context than the annotations alone.

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 dense but well-structured, with each line serving a distinct purpose: action summary, safety flags, endpoint, per-status behavior, and naming clarification. For a tool with destructive and email-sending implications, the length is justified and every sentence 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?

The description covers the essential operational context: endpoint, safety profile, per-status requirements, and the non-standard 'START' value. Since an output schema exists, return value details are not needed. This is complete for a complex, mutating tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (status, campaign_id, confirm_send, confirm_destructive) are already fully described in the schema. The description adds minimal additional parameter semantics beyond repeating the enum values and confirm requirements, which are already documented in the schema's property descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb phrase 'Start, pause or stop a campaign', clearly identifying the action (update status) and resource (campaign). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like smartlead_list_campaigns or smartlead_get_campaign by focusing on status changes, not retrieval or creation.

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 provides clear context on when each status is appropriate: PAUSED is an ordinary mutation, START requires unrestricted mode and confirm_send, STOPPED is permanent and requires confirm_destructive. It effectively explains prerequisites and exclusions, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use this when...'.

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