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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description earns credit by explaining the nature of that destruction ('replacing the source'). It does not cover validation failures at the tool level (only the surface parameter schema notes rejection) or the effect on prospects already attached to the campaign.

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, zero filler, with the state constraint and source kinds front-loaded and the sibling routing placed second. Every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with fully documented schema, the description covers the essential draft-vs-active distinction and replacement semantics. It stops short of saying what happens to previously staged prospects or whether the call can be re-run safely, which idempotentHint implies but does not confirm.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's enumeration of source kinds loosely maps to the 'type' enum and hints that CRM sources exist, but adds no syntax, defaults, or cross-parameter rules beyond what the schema already documents.

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+resource ('Point a DRAFTED campaign at where its prospects come from') and enumerates the accepted source kinds: LinkedIn/Sales Navigator search URL, group, event, post, or CRM segment. It explicitly contrasts itself with campaign_add_prospects, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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 an explicit precondition ('DRAFTED campaign') and names the alternative for the other state ('For an ACTIVE campaign use campaign_add_prospects instead'). It also explains the behavioral difference — replacing the source vs adding to the existing pool — which is the exact decision the agent must make.

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