create_campaign_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states it creates a resource but does not disclose that the operation is a mutation, mentions no constraints like the immutability of objectiveType or the requirement for endDate when totalBudget is set, and lacks any side-effect or permission information. This is a significant gap for a create tool, deserving a 2.

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 with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides useful context about campaign groups without repetition. It is efficient and well-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?

For a create operation with 10 parameters, the description is minimal but workable because the schema carries full parameter documentation. It does not mention what the response contains or any workflow expectations, but this is not critical for a simple create operation. It adequately covers the basic 'what' but not deeper context like offline effects, making it a 3.

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%, with detailed parameter descriptions already present. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not elevate it. It does not clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., mutual exclusivity of budgets) that would add value.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Creates a new LinkedIn campaign group') and its purpose ('for organizing campaigns'). It is specific about the resource type and distinguishable from sibling tools like create_campaign, which creates an individual campaign. The additional sentence about managing status, budget, and performance further clarifies the group's role.

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 implicitly indicates use for grouping campaigns, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create_campaign or provide when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., having an ad account) or exclusions. This is adequate but not explicit, earning a 3.

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