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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that deletion is permanent and requires user confirmation, but it omits permission requirements, cascading effects, and what the response will contain.

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 two short, front-loaded clauses. The action and its permanence come first, followed by the critical confirmation requirement. Nothing extraneous is included.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers permanence and confirmation but leaves out side effects, authorization needs, and result behavior. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond identifying the mutation, which is appropriate for baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource: delete a campaign permanently. It also names the underlying GraphQL operation, making the action unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the resource is clear enough to distinguish it from delete_targeting_keyword and other campaign tools.

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 provides a clear safety prerequisite: confirm with the user first. Usage is implied by the action itself, but the description does not state when to prefer permanent deletion over alternatives or when not to use it.

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