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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description correctly does not need to argue that it writes. It adds real value beyond the annotations: the 255-byte limit, the before/after/verified read-back, and the key fact that validate_only=True only reads and shows 'would_set' without writing. What it omits is the blast radius of a rename given destructiveHint=true (e.g., whether history/reporting keys on the name).

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the core action and the byte limit, then the sibling pointer, then the two modifiers. Nothing is repeated from the schema and every sentence conveys a fact an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers the action, the constraint, the dry-run mode, the workspace scoping, and the sibling alternative. An agent can invoke it correctly without opening anything else.

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 carry the parameter burden, and it does: it explains the 255-byte constraint on 'name', the read-only semantics of 'validate_only', and the optionality rule for 'workspace'. Only campaign_id is left unexplained, but that is self-evident from the tool name.

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 ('LinkedIn-Kampagne umbenennen') plus the read-back contract, and explicitly routes campaign groups to linkedin_update_campaign_group. It never names the other linkedin_update_campaign_* siblings, but the resource noun is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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 explains the validate_only dry-run path and when workspace can be omitted, which is useful operating guidance. However, it gives no explicit 'use this instead of that' rule against the other campaign update tools (bid/budget/schedule/status/targeting), so the trigger conditions are implied rather than stated.

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