create_campaign_group

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, which already flag this as a non-idempotent, destructive mutation. The description adds no behavioral context: it doesn't mention required permissions, what happens on failure, or that creation is irreversible. With annotations covering the safety profile at a high level, the description adds little beyond the basic action.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core action and then explain the resource's role. No redundant or filler content.

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 creation tool with 10 parameters, high schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks details on return values (no output schema) and behavioral nuances like permissions or side effects, leaving some gaps.

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 the schema already documents all 10 parameters, including enums, formats, and immutability. The description provides no parameter-specific details, so baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Creates a new LinkedIn campaign group for organizing campaigns.' This clearly identifies the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like create_campaign or update_campaign_group, but the 'campaign group' resource is distinct enough.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_campaign for individual campaigns). The description only states the purpose; it does not cover prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or the relationship with sibling tools such as create_campaign.

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