cancel_campaign

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

Despite no annotations, the description explicitly marks the action as a mutation, states it is definitive, and notes that sent messages are not undone. It also requires confirmation, which adds safety transparency. However, it does not discuss undo capabilities or other side effects.

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 sentences with a clear structure using a dash separator. Every sentence provides essential information: action, scope, irreversible nature, confirmation requirement. No waste.

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?

Lacks information about the return value or typical response (success/failure). Since no output schema exists, describing the expected output would improve completeness. Otherwise, the description covers purpose, parameters, and important behavioral notes.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond emphasizing the requirement of confirm=true. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema already does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states it cancels a marketing campaign definitively and lists the states it applies to (en curso, pausada, borrador, programada). It specifies that already sent messages are not undone, leaving no ambiguity about the action.

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 mentions the need for confirmation (confirm=true) but does not differentiate when to use this tool versus sibling tools like archive_campaign, pause_campaign, or delete_campaign. Guidance on when to cancel vs alternative actions is missing.

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