update_campaign_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds the concrete set of changeable fields, which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or partial-update semantics beyond what structured data covers.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the mutable fields, with no filler. Slightly padded by the parenthetical enum, which duplicates the schema.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the definition is adequate but thin: it doesn't clarify whether fields update independently, what a successful response looks like, or any rate/permission constraints. Annotations carry the safety profile, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 are already documented, including the ACTIVE/PAUSED/ARCHIVED/DRAFT enum and the Unix-millisecond end date. The description only restates the field list at a high level, adding no syntax or format detail 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?

"Updates an existing LinkedIn campaign group" is a specific verb+resource, and it enumerates the mutable fields (status, budget, name, end date). The word "existing" implicitly separates it from create_campaign_group and delete_campaign_group, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 says what can be changed but not when to prefer this tool over siblings like update_campaign or delete_campaign_group. No prerequisites, preconditions, or exclusions are stated, leaving usage entirely inferred.

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