create_campaign

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

Annotations already declare openWorld, non-idempotent, destructive, and non-read-only behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of required account permissions, whether campaigns are created in DRAFT by default, or what happens on repeat calls. Minimal added value.

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 short sentences with the action and scope front-loaded and no padding. The second sentence partially restates required-field information already visible in the schema, so it is efficient rather than maximally informative.

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 22-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description is thin, though the high schema coverage compensates. It says nothing about the creation result (e.g., campaign ID) or default DRAFT status, leaving gaps an agent would need filled elsewhere.

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 enums and defaults fully documented, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only names three required inputs generically ('targeting criteria, budget, and objective type') and adds no format or constraint details. Baseline 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?

Clear verb+resource ('Creates a new LinkedIn ad campaign') with placement scope ('within a campaign group') and a summary of the required inputs. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like create_campaign_group or create_creative, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 second sentence names the prerequisite inputs (targeting criteria, budget, objective type), which is useful context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-an-alternative guidance (e.g., update_campaign, create_campaign_group). Usage is only implied.

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