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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds value beyond them by disclosing confirm=false = preview (a dry-run path) and the MAX_CONVERSION dependency. It does not, however, explain why the operation carries a destructive hint or what state changes when confirm=false is omitted.

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, zero filler, with the core action and its effect front-loaded, followed by parameter sourcing and the preview flag. Every sentence adds signal.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description covers the key prerequisite, the preview flag, and parameter sourcing. Missing only account/campaign identifier semantics and any permission/eligibility requirements.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the two non-obvious parameters (conversion_id sourced from list_linkedin_conversions, confirm as a preview toggle), though account_id and campaign_id are left to name inference.

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 (attaches), resource (conversion tracking rule), target (LinkedIn campaign), and the outcome (reporting/optimization for that conversion). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling detach_linkedin_conversion and list_linkedin_conversions.

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 clear usage context: an existing rule must be attached to a MAX_CONVERSION campaign before it can go ACTIVE, and conversion_id comes from list_linkedin_conversions. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or when-not-to-use condition, but the routing guidance is strong.

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