update_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 only states what fields can be changed but doesn't disclose any side effects, such as whether updates are partial or full, whether changes are irreversible, permissions required, or any constraints on transition (though the schema mentions common transitions). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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?

The description is a single sentence that states the primary purpose and lists the key changeable fields. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. There is no fluff or redundant information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover more context such as return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. It doesn't mention that accountId and campaignGroupId are required, nor does it explain what happens on success or failure. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient context. The agent has to infer too much from the schema alone.

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 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds a high-level summary by listing the changeable fields (status, budget, name, end date), which maps to the parameters but doesn't add new meaning beyond the schema. For example, it doesn't explain that totalBudgetAmount and totalBudgetCurrency must be used together, or that endDate is in milliseconds (the schema already says this). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Updates' and the resource 'LinkedIn campaign group', and lists the specific fields that can be changed (status, budget, name, end date). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_campaign_group' and 'delete_campaign_group' without requiring the agent to inspect schemas.

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 explicitly says 'Updates an existing LinkedIn campaign group', which makes it clear that this tool is for modifying existing groups, not creating or deleting them. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the wording strongly implies the use case. It could be improved by explicitly saying 'use this instead of create_campaign_group when the group already exists', but the intent is clear enough.

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