delete_campaign_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by revealing a non-obvious consequence: draft groups are deleted immediately, while non-draft groups only move to PENDING_DELETION status. It could go further by noting permissions or side effects on associated campaigns, but the core side-effect behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the operation; the second provides the single most important behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the action and the differentiated deletion behavior. It would be more complete with a note about what happens to campaigns within the group or explicit permission expectations, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 both accountId and campaignGroupId already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning, constraints, or relationships between parameters, so it stays at the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 states a specific action ('Deletes') on a specific resource ('LinkedIn campaign group'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_campaign, create_campaign_group, and update_campaign_group. It is non-tautological and immediately tells an agent what the tool does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_campaign_group or delete_campaign. The draft/non-draft status explanation is useful behavioral context, but it does not help an agent choose among related tools or identify when not to use this one.

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