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

Beyond the annotations (which already flag mutation and destructiveness), the description discloses what validate_only does NOT check, what 'success' actually guarantees (API acceptance, not valid transition), and recommends a read-back verification. These are exactly the behavioral caveats an agent needs before firing a destructive status change.

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?

Front-loads the action and allowed values, then layers the caveats in order of importance (validate_only, success semantics, workspace). Every sentence carries operational value with no padding.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained; the description covers the non-obvious inputs and the failure/success semantics well. It could additionally note permission requirements or consequences of ARCHIVED/CANCELED, but nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

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 load: it supplies the full status enum (absent from the schema), explains validate_only, and clarifies workspace's optionality. Only campaign_id is left implicit as the obvious identifier, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 ('Status einer LinkedIn-Kampagne ändern') and enumerates the exact allowed status values, which immediately separates it from sibling update tools such as linkedin_update_campaign_bid or linkedin_update_campaign_name. There is no ambiguity about what the tool mutates.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance for validate_only (local dry-run, no API call) and for workspace (optional when only one workspace exists), plus a follow-up instruction to re-read via linkedin_list_campaigns. It stops short of stating when to prefer a different status-transition tool or listing permission prerequisites.

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