update_campaign

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 adds the valuable partial-update semantic ('only specified fields are changed'), which tells the agent it won't clobber unrelated settings — a real behavioral detail beyond the annotations. It stops short of noting permissions or irreversibility of destructive changes.

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?

Three tight sentences; the core action is front-loaded and the partial-update caveat is a useful closer. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be marginally denser.

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 15-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation and partial-update behavior adequately, but omits auth/permission requirements and what a successful response returns. Annotations carry the safety profile, but the mutation risk and side effects (e.g., targeting replacement) are only visible in the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description names several updatable fields but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., timestamp formats, currency pairing, enumeration values).

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 ('Updates an existing LinkedIn campaign') and enumerates the mutable fields (status, budget, name, targeting, bid). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_campaign and delete_campaign without needing to open either schema.

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?

'Updates an existing' implies the campaign must already exist, giving implied usage context. However, it never states when to prefer this over create_campaign, delete_campaign, or update_campaign_group, and no exclusions or prerequisites are offered.

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