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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so irreversibility is partly implied. The description adds meaningful nuance by specifying it is a 'Soft Delete' yet not undoable via the tool, which is behavioral context beyond the flags. It still omits permission/auth requirements.

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?

Compact, with the destructive warning front-loaded right after the verb phrase. No wasted text. Slight deduction for the parameter note being appended inline rather than structured.

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?

Given an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description is adequate: it conveys the destructive nature and workspace semantics. It could still note what happens to associated entities (ads/ad groups) on removal to be fully complete for a destructive campaign operation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains the workspace parameter (slug, optional when a single workspace) but leaves campaign_id unexplained, though its meaning is self-evident from the name.

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 clear verb+resource (Kampagne entfernen) that distinguishes it from siblings like ads_update_campaign_status or ads_remove_ad_group. The 'Soft Delete' qualifier adds specificity. It doesn't need to name a sibling but the target is unambiguous.

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 versus alternatives such as pausing via ads_update_campaign_status. The 'Nicht rückgängig machbar' line is a caution, not a usage rule. The agent gets no explicit when/when-not.

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