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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates live data. The description adds real context beyond that: validate_only performs a purely local check with no API call, and the budget should be re-read after writing to confirm the change landed. It does not mention permission requirements, budget limits, or that the write takes effect immediately, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Four labeled lines, front-loaded with the action then the parameters, with no filler sentences. It is terse to the point of telegraphic, and the German text sits in an otherwise English tool environment, but the information density is high.

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 no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. For a destructive five-parameter mutation tool the description covers dry-run behavior, currency sourcing, workspace optionality and post-write verification; only the origin of the required campaign_id is left unaddressed.

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 carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: daily_budget gets units and an example (75.0), currency gets an ISO-code format, default EUR, and a concrete source tool, workspace gets optionality semantics, and validate_only gets the no-API-call meaning. The required campaign_id is never explained and no source for it is named, which is the one meaningful gap.

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 opening line names a specific verb and resource ('Tagesbudget einer LinkedIn-Kampagne ändern') and scopes it to the daily budget, which distinguishes it implicitly from the bid-related sibling linkedin_update_campaign_bid. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so an agent must infer the split from the field name alone.

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 gives a useful workflow: check with validate_only first, then write, then read the budget back with linkedin_list_campaigns. It also tells the agent where to source the currency (linkedin_list_accounts/linkedin_list_campaigns). It never states when to use this versus linkedin_update_campaign_bid or linkedin_update_campaign_settings, so usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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