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

Annotations only declare non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent; the description adds substantially more: nothing is deleted, the change is reversible, and crucially that no LinkedIn action occurs at call time because the engine processes campaigns later within daily/weekly limits, business hours and pacing. That deferred-effect disclosure is exactly the kind of context an agent cannot infer from structured fields and prevents a wrong assumption that outreach halts immediately.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then ordered by what an agent needs: permission, reversibility, timing. Five sentences is slightly longer than needed but each carries distinct information; nothing is filler.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers reversibility, permission and deferred execution, which is enough to call it correctly. The one loose end is directing re-activation to launch_campaign when resume_campaign is the sibling that exists, which could send an agent down the wrong path.

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 100%, with campaign_id sourced from list_campaigns and idempotency_key fully explained (pattern, 24-hour replay behavior). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Pause a running campaign') that an agent can match to the pause action without opening the schema. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the existing sibling resume_campaign, and instead points at launch_campaign for re-activation, leaving the pause/resume pair undefined.

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 explicit permission guidance ('No confirmation is needed: stopping outreach is always allowed'), which tells the agent it can act without asking the user. It also names a route back (launch_campaign), but gives no conditions for choosing pause over other campaign state changes.

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