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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that the creative remains in CampaignStack as rejected and is never published to LinkedIn. This communicates the post-condition and the important consequence of rejection. It aligns with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, with no contradiction.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: action, consequence, and lookup instruction. The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and 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 mutation with no output schema, the description states the post-condition, clarifies the LinkedIn publication consequence, and explains how to source the required identifier. Annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so no critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The schema documents platform and workspaceId, but adCreativeId has no description. The description compensates for that gap by telling the agent to obtain adCreativeId from campaignstack_list_ad_creatives, which adds meaning to the required parameter.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Reject' and the target resource 'pending ad creative,' then clarifies the outcome: the creative stays in CampaignStack as rejected and is never published to LinkedIn. This is distinct from related tools like approve_ad_creative or create_ad_creative.

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 tells the agent to use campaignstack_list_ad_creatives to find adCreativeId, which is the key prerequisite. It does not enumerate exclusions such as 'do not use for approved creatives,' but the 'pending' qualifier implies the intended state.

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