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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's mutating verb 'ändern' is consistent with that. It adds the valuable status enum that the schema lacks (0% coverage), but omits behavioral context like the effect of archiving, whether transitions are validated, or what validate_only does. No annotation contradiction.

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, front-loaded with the core action and status values before the workspace note. No wasted wording, though it could stand to spend a sentence on the unexplained required and validate_only parameters.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with an output schema (so returns need no explanation), the description covers the status values and workspace semantics adequately. But it leaves validate_only and creative_id unaddressed and offers no risk or validation guidance for a destructive operation.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden; it does explain the allowed status values and clarifies that workspace is a customer-workspace slug that is optional with a single workspace. However, creative_id and especially validate_only are left completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb (change/ändern) and resource (a LinkedIn creative's status) and enumerates the target values ACTIVE/PAUSED/DRAFT/ARCHIVED. It clearly distinguishes itself from linkedin_update_campaign_status by operating on creatives rather than campaigns, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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 includes one usage hint - workspace is optional when there is only one workspace - which is genuinely useful scoping. But it gives no guidance on when to use this versus linkedin_list_creatives or the campaign-status siblings, nor any when-not-to-use conditions.

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