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 known. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the blast radius (recipient rows deleted regardless of status), the irreversibility boundary (sent messages are not recalled), and the permission/feature gate.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its destructive scope, then the alternative, then the access gates. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

No output schema exists, but for a delete primitive with one documented parameter that is not a gap. All decision-relevant context — scope of deletion, irreversibility, alternative tool, admin and feature requirements — is present.

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?

There is a single required parameter 'id' and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the full parameter semantics. The description adds no format, source, or discovery guidance for the ID, 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 and resource ('Delete a campaign') and immediately scopes it further by naming what else is removed ('its recipient rows, in any status'). It also distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling by pointing to cancel_whatsapp_campaign for the non-destructive path.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-alternative rule: delete for permanent removal, cancel to stop a campaign while keeping delivery history. Adds hard preconditions ('Administrators only', 'Requires feature: whatsapp_campaigns') that gate whether the agent should attempt the call at all.

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