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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, but the description adds the crucial context they cannot express: active/approved makes PumpGTM's paced engine send connection requests, messages and emails to enrolled third parties, and that approved records approval of an exact revision and makes it live in the same call. This is meaningful side-effect disclosure beyond the hints.

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 sequence case and each sentence carries non-redundant information, but the paragraph is dense and run-on, packing several distinct rules into long compound sentences. Efficient in content, slightly heavy in structure.

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?

No output schema exists, and for an open-world state mutation the description covers the effects, the approval guardrail, and resource routing. It stops short of explaining what happens to paused enrolled leads on resume or what the call returns, leaving modest gaps for a mutating tool.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains the semantics of every status value, which id (sequenceId vs emailCampaignId) applies to which resource, and that expectedRevision is mandatory for approved. It does not, however, state that sequenceId and emailCampaignId are mutually exclusive or clarify expectedRevision's revision-checking behavior.

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 (set status) and a specific dual resource (LinkedIn sequence vs email campaign), then maps each enum value to its concrete effect per resource type. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling save_sequence_draft by naming what that tool already accomplishes.

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?

Explicitly states when each status applies and when it does not: 'approved' only for still-draft sequences and requires expectedRevision, is not applicable to email campaigns, and is unnecessary for sequences created/edited with save_sequence_draft or drafts people were added to over MCP. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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