Remove a LinkedIn Ads campaign using its account and campaign IDs. Draft campaigns are deleted immediately; non-draft campaigns are set to PENDING_DELETION.
Deletes a LinkedIn campaign. Draft campaigns are deleted immediately. Non-draft campaigns are set to PENDING_DELETION status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accountId | Yes | The LinkedIn Ad Account ID | |
| campaignId | Yes | The campaign ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical subtype behavior: draft campaigns are deleted immediately while non-draft campaigns become PENDING_DELETION. This is exactly the 'what gets destroyed' context the bar rewards.
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 sentences, zero waste, and the subtype-specific behavior is front-loaded after the core action. Efficiently structured.
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?
Complete for a destructive delete tool: annotations carry the safety profile, schema fully documents params, and the description fills the one remaining gap—how deletion behaves for drafts vs non-drafts. No output schema is needed since the operation returns no meaningful object.
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 accountId and campaignId. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Specific verb (deletes) + resource (LinkedIn campaign). Clearly distinguishable from sibling delete_campaign_group and update_campaign by naming the exact resource.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives mentioned. The draft vs non-draft behavior is implied context, but doesn't route the agent to another tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.