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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: a mandatory dry-run preview pass and an exact-name confirmation gate as a guard against accidental deletion. It omits whether deletion is reversible and whether removing a campaign cascades to its ad squads and ads, which would be valuable for a destructive tool.

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 sentences, both load-bearing, with the destructive action stated first and the confirmation protocol immediately after. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 7-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and 43% schema coverage, the confirmation workflow is captured but material gaps remain: what the preview pass returns, how id_or_name resolves names vs IDs per level, and cascade/irreversibility semantics. Adequate for safe invocation, but not fully self-contained.

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 only 43%, and the description compensates well for the two most dangerous parameters — confirm and confirm_name — explaining their interaction and the exact-match requirement that the schema leaves undocumented. However, it says nothing about level, id_or_name, folder, account or language, leaving half the parameter surface to inference.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource set — 'Delete a campaign, ad squad or ad' — matching the level enum exactly and clearly distinguishing this from sibling mutation tools like snapchat_set_status (pause) or snapchat_rename. An agent can identify the operation without inspecting the schema.

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 gives explicit procedural guidance: call first without confirm to preview, then call again with confirm=true and confirm_name matching the exact name. That is a clear when/how-to-use recipe. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., 'use snapchat_set_status to pause instead of permanently deleting'), so exclusion guidance is absent.

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