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 covered. The description adds value beyond that by stating permanence and an eligibility precondition (campaign must be unsent), though it does not explain failure behavior when the precondition is violated.

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?

One short sentence with the destructive nature and the precondition front-loaded; every word earns its place with no filler.

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 full annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers what is destroyed and the precondition. The only meaningful gap is not routing the agent to cancel-campaign for campaigns that have already been sent.

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 'id' parameter is documented as accepting a camp_xxx ID or a name, so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds nothing about the identifier beyond what the schema already states.

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') plus a scoping precondition ('that has not been sent'), which clearly signals it is for unsent campaigns only. It does not name the sibling to use for sent campaigns (cancel-campaign), so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

The phrase 'has not been sent' implies when the tool is applicable, but it never states what to do otherwise (e.g., use cancel-campaign for sent campaigns) and gives no prerequisites or confirmation guidance for a destructive operation.

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