synter-mcp-server

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

The description doesn't add behavioral details beyond the destructiveHint annotation (which indicates a write operation). It doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'destructive' entails (e.g., budget spending, irreversible creation). With annotations covering the destructive aspect, the description adds little extra context, meeting the lower bar but not enriching it significantly.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Create a LinkedIn Ads campaign for B2B advertising') directly contributes to understanding, with zero waste or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, destructive operation) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but doesn't cover behavioral nuances, error cases, or output expectations. With annotations providing some safety context, it's complete enough for basic use but leaves gaps for an agent to operate fully.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond implying B2B targeting (which loosely relates to target_company_sizes/industries/job_functions but isn't explicit). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the semantic burden.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('LinkedIn Ads campaign') with a specific context ('for B2B advertising'). It distinguishes from siblings like create_meta_campaign or create_reddit_campaign by specifying the LinkedIn platform, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other LinkedIn-related tools (none are listed in siblings).

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 provides minimal guidance—it mentions B2B advertising context but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_display_campaign or create_search_campaign, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an ad account setup) or exclusions. No explicit usage context is provided beyond the general purpose.

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