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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds critical context: it sends real LinkedIn invites, requires user confirmation, and requires user's own connected account. This goes beyond annotations by warning about real-world impact and prerequisites.

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, each earning its place: what it does, when to use, and critical warnings. Front-loaded with the core action and immediately follows with the most important caveat (real automation, confirm with user).

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, prerequisites, user confirmation requirement, and integration setup. It's complete for the agent to decide and execute 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 100% and the single parameter campaign_id is well-described in the schema. The description adds context by mentioning where to get the ID (from list or create), but this is minor added value beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool activates a paused Zeekeo campaign to start sending real LinkedIn connection invites, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting campaigns are created paused by default and this is the follow-up to zeekeo_create_campaign.

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 to use: after zeekeo_create_campaign, and when not: requires user confirmation and connected Zeekeo account. Provides alternative action (direct user to connect account) and context for real automation.

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