delete_campaign_group

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description nonetheless adds genuinely new context: draft groups vanish immediately while non-draft groups only move to PENDING_DELETION status, which is the key operational distinction for a caller. It stops short of explaining what PENDING_DELETION ultimately means or whether child campaigns are affected.

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, both earning their place: the first establishes the action, the second front-loads the behavioral nuance that matters most. No filler, no repetition of the name or annotations.

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 destructive tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the definition covers the core nuance (immediate vs deferred deletion). However, it omits relevant consequences such as whether contained campaigns/creatives are also removed, whether the async deletion can be reverted, and what the caller must supply in terms of permissions.

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% (both accountId and campaignGroupId are documented in the schema), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or identifier guidance 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 (Deletes) and resource (LinkedIn campaign group) that is inherently distinct from siblings such as delete_campaign and update_campaign_group. It never explicitly routes the agent between those siblings, but the resource noun does the disambiguation work.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like update_campaign_group or delete_campaign. The draft vs non-draft sentence describes behavior, not the conditions under which an agent should pick this tool.

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