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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: administrator-only authorization and the `contact_center` feature gate. It stops short of saying whether the deletion is permanent/hard or what happens to associated campaign data.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the critical precondition and auth gates bolded for scannability. However, 'Deletes a campaign' restates the title and first sentence, so one of the four sentences earns nothing.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and complete safety annotations, the description covers preconditions, authorization, and feature gating. It does not indicate what a successful call returns (no output schema exists), but that omission is minor here.

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 single parameter `display_id` is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Delete a voice campaign') that is immediately distinguishable from delete_campaign, delete_whatsapp_campaign, and cancel_voice_campaign. The second sentence is redundant ('Deletes a campaign'), but the scope constraint that follows pins the tool down precisely.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition ('Only draft campaigns can be deleted') and routes the alternative case to a named sibling action ('end a running one with Cancel'), which maps to cancel_voice_campaign. An agent has everything needed to choose correctly.

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