update_creative_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured fields. The description adds only the set of target statuses, and never mentions that archiving may be irreversible or what constraints apply to status transitions.

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 verb and resource, with zero filler. The allowed operations are stated immediately after the purpose.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description is serviceable but omits two things an agent would want: whether ARCHIVED is recoverable and whether all status transitions are legal. No output schema exists, so return behavior is also unaddressed.

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 accountId, creativeId and the intendedStatus enum are all documented in the schema. The description echoes the status concept but adds no format or validation detail (e.g., URN vs numeric ID handling) 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?

Names a specific verb (Updates) and resource (the intended status of a LinkedIn creative/ad), and enumerates the three effects: activate, pause, archive. No sibling performs creative-status changes, so differentiation is inherent, though the distinction between 'intended' and effective status is left unexplained.

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 three listed actions imply the use cases (activate/pause/archive a creative), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (permissions, whether status changes can be reverted), and no pointer to the create_creative sibling for related work.

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