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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond the annotations: the cascade scope (emails, sequences, scheduled tasks) and the irreversibility warning, which is exactly what an agent needs before invoking a destructive call.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero redundancy; the cascade scope and the irreversibility warning are both front-loaded rather than buried.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is removed, that it is permanent, and that it cascades. It omits any note on permissions or whether related resources (e.g. leads) survive, which is a minor gap rather than a critical one.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its provenance ('from list_campaigns'). The description adds no parameter detail, so 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 ('Permanently deletes a campaign') and immediately scopes the blast radius ('all associated data, including its emails, sequences and scheduled tasks'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like pause_campaign, update_campaign, or delete_icp.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the irreversibility warning, but the description never says when to choose this over the non-destructive alternative pause_campaign, nor does it state prerequisites such as permissions or whether a campaign must be stopped first.

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