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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral risk: on an active campaign, REAL connection invites begin within the next cycles. It also notes the side effect of adding linkedin to the channels. Missing are reversibility (e.g., pause_channel to stop) and any error/idempotency behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and consequence, each carrying real information. The first sentence is somewhat run-on and could be split for clarity, but nothing is wasted.

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 2-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the fallback for account_ids, the real-world consequence, and the approval prerequisite. Return-value explanation is unnecessary since no output schema exists.

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?

The schema documents `id` fully, and the description compensates for the undocumented `account_ids` by stating "given (or selected/all connected) accounts", which conveys the default fallback. The word "selected" remains slightly ambiguous about where that selection originates.

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: queues the campaign audience for LinkedIn and adds LinkedIn to the channels. It is clearly the LinkedIn counterpart to activate_campaign_phone by naming the channel explicitly, though it doesn't draw that distinction in prose.

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?

"Only after the user approved preview_activate_campaign_linkedin" is an explicit precondition naming the sibling preview tool, and "On an active campaign REAL connection invites start within the next cycles" frames when the effect is consequential. It stops short of naming exclusions (e.g., already-active channel) or contrasting with add_campaign_linkedin_account.

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