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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: server-side validation against validate_message rules, refusal with issues, empty-string clearing, full replacement of follow_ups, approval removal for approved campaigns on another account, no immediate LinkedIn action, and later paced execution by the campaign engine.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then covers the important behavioral consequences in a compact paragraph. It is dense but most sentences earn their place by clarifying validation, replacement, approval, and timing behavior.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers validation, side effects, approval impact, and execution timing. The main remaining gap is that it does not describe the success return value, though the annotations and schema carry much of the structured burden.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description still adds meaningful semantics by explaining that an empty follow-up string clears that step and that follow_ups replaces the whole list, which goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: setting a campaign's connection note and up to three follow-ups. It also scopes the tool to campaigns that open with a connection note and distinguishes it from validate_message by explaining that server-side validation happens regardless.

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?

The description gives a clear context—campaigns that open with a connection note—but does not explicitly say when to use this instead of siblings such as set_lead_messages or validate_message. Usage is implied by the campaign-level message semantics rather than stated as a routing rule.

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