ghl_email_update_campaign

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write operation, but the description adds minimal behavioral details beyond the basic update action. It does not disclose whether updates are partial or full replacements, if the campaign must be in draft status, or what side effects (e.g., notifications) occur. The OAuth scopes are mentioned but that's standard authentication info.

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 relatively concise but includes a redundant first line ('Update Email Campaign') that mirrors the title. The structure mixes a title-like statement with the actual purpose and endpoint info, making it less efficient than it could be.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description should at least mention the response format (e.g., returns updated campaign or success status). It lacks preconditions (e.g., campaign must be draft) and error conditions, leaving the agent underinformed about the tool's full behavior.

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 the schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, earning the baseline score.

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 clearly states the tool updates an email campaign draft, using the verb 'update' and specifying the resource as 'email campaign draft'. This distinguishes it from creating or deleting campaigns, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like ghl_email_create_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?

The description implies usage for updating drafts but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it (e.g., for sent campaigns). No exclusions or alternative references are given.

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