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 real consequences: pending contacts are reassigned to remaining accounts and already-sent invites persist. However, it omits whether the removal is reversible, what happens if this is the last account (where do pending contacts go), permission requirements, and whether the account stays connected elsewhere.

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 short clauses, zero filler, with the primary action front-loaded and the side effects immediately after. Nothing to trim.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main side effect but leaves the second parameter undocumented and gives no edge-case or reversibility information an agent would need to act safely.

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% — only campaign id is documented ('from list_campaigns') and account_id is bare. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, not even clarifying that account_id refers to a LinkedIn account attached to that campaign.

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 and resource in context: 'Stop using an account for this campaign.' That clearly differentiates it from add_campaign_linkedin_account and list_campaign_linkedin_accounts, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary against disconnect_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?

Usage is only implied by the imperative phrasing — an agent can infer it is for detaching an account mid-campaign. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no prerequisites, and no pointer to the related disconnect_linkedin_account or listing tools.

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