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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for adding a genuine consequence beyond the annotations: existing sent messages are preserved in their conversations, clarifying the blast radius of the deletion.

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, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the retention detail. 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 single-parameter destructive tool whose annotations already cover safety, the description plus schema is nearly complete. It could add whether deletion is permanent/unrecoverable, but the retention note and annotations leave little an agent genuinely needs missing.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage ('Campaign id as returned by list_campaigns'), the schema carries the full parameter burden. The description adds nothing about the id format or source, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (a campaign) in the first sentence, which is clearer than the title alone. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related siblings delete_voice_campaign and delete_whatsapp_campaign, since 'campaign' here is generic.

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 the sibling delete_voice_campaign/delete_whatsapp_campaign variants, nor any stated prerequisite such as needing a campaign id from list_campaigns or confirming the campaign must not be active. The agent must infer the context.

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