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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: unsent emails and charges are cancelled, follow-ups stop, replies are still read, and the action is irreversible. These are exactly the consequences an agent needs for a destructive operation.

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?

The description is short, front-loads the irreversible outcome, then lists concrete consequences in plain language. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 destructive, idempotent, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers consequences and irreversibility well. The main gap is that it does not explicitly route temporary stopping to outreach_pause.

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 100%, and the single campaign_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its 36-character constraint. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'End a campaign for good.' It also states the core distinguishing effect, that the campaign cannot be restarted, which separates it from reversible stop/pause siblings.

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?

It clearly indicates the permanent-stop use case and names an alternative for restarting: save a new campaign instead. It does not explicitly contrast with outreach_pause, so an agent must infer that temporary stopping belongs elsewhere.

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