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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by disclosing state-dependent behavior: permanent removal for DRAFT groups versus a soft 'marked for deletion' outcome otherwise, plus the confirm=false preview gate. That is exactly the extra context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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 compact, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the destructive behavior leads and the parameter nuance is parenthetical. Every clause conveys actionable information.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the permanence and preview semantics, but omits whether confirm=true is required to execute and any permission requirements. Nearly complete for a three-parameter mutation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the semantics of confirm (false = preview), but says nothing about account_id or group_id beyond their self-evident names. Partial compensation for a low-coverage 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Deletes a LinkedIn campaign group'), and the resource name alone separates it from the sibling delete_linkedin_campaign. An agent can identify exactly what object type is affected without opening the schema.

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?

It clarifies the safe-preview path ('confirm=false = preview'), which is genuinely usage-relevant, but never states when to use this versus update_linkedin_campaign_group or list_linkedin_campaign_groups, nor any prerequisite. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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