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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses side effects — pending contacts are rebalanced and backfilled, invites start in next cycles, and no credits are consumed — but it omits permission requirements, reversibility, and behavior when the campaign or account is in an unexpected state.

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 short sentences front-load the core action and then add operational consequences and cost. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main side effects well. It is still incomplete regarding prerequisites, error cases, and any return/response expectations an agent might need before invoking it.

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' as coming from list_campaigns but leaves 'account_id' undocumented. The description implies 'account_id' is a connected LinkedIn account, but does not state where to obtain valid account IDs or how duplicates are handled.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: add a connected account to a running campaign. It clearly distinguishes this as a campaign-account attachment operation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives such as connect_linkedin_account or remove_campaign_linkedin_account.

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 phrase 'running campaign' implies the campaign must be active, and the description notes that invites begin in later cycles. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus connecting an account to the workspace, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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