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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it warns that contacts receive REAL outreach, that credits are consumed as messages go out, and that LinkedIn work is queued rather than executed immediately. It omits permission/auth requirements and whether a launch can be undone beyond pause_campaign, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, side effects and the approval gate front-loaded. 'Exactly like the app' is the only slightly soft phrase, but it conveys behavior parity with the UI, so waste is minimal.

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 high-consequence mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers consequences (real sends, credit spend), sequencing (preview/approval first), target selection semantics, and even names the return payload (campaign plus linkedin_activation). Nothing essential to calling it safely is missing.

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 50% (id documented, linkedin_account_ids bare), and the description compensates by explaining that LinkedIn runs on the 'selected (or all connected) accounts' — i.e. omitting the list means all connected accounts. The id parameter's origin is also pointed at via list_campaigns in the schema.

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?

Specific verb and resource with scope: starts or resumes a campaign, kicks off email sending and queues LinkedIn on selected or all connected accounts. It also names the required precursor (preview_launch_campaign). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as send_campaign_emails_now or activate_campaign_linkedin, which sound like overlapping actions.

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: only call after the user reviewed preview_launch_campaign and approved it. It also frames the operational window (working hours) but does not state when-not to call it versus the channel-activation or send-now siblings.

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