create_creative

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, destructive, open-world write, so safety context is covered. The description adds the behavioral nuance that without a content reference the creative is created as a reference to existing content, but says nothing about side effects, external API requirements, or resulting state beyond the default DRAFT in the schema.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the one non-obvious requirement. No filler or repetition.

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 7-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description omits what the call returns (e.g., the new creative URN) — information an agent likely needs for follow-up calls like update_creative_status. The critical inputs are covered by the schema, so this is adequate but with a real gap.

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 all seven parameters (including the enum constraints and the leadgenFormId conditional) are already documented inline. The description reiterates the contentReference requirement, which is slightly useful framing, but adds no format or inter-parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 creative/ad") plus its placement scope ("under a campaign"), which separates it from generic create tools. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling create_inline_ad, leaving that inference to the agent.

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 supplies one clear precondition (a content reference is required), but gives no guidance on when to choose this over create_inline_ad or how it relates to update_creative_status/create_campaign. Usage is implied from the create semantics rather than stated.

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