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

While annotations already mark this as destructive, the description adds 'Permanently deletes the resource. Irreversible.' which reinforces the finality. It also reveals that the operation is scoped to the active Space, a behavioral trait not present in annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. No filler or repetition.

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 simple delete operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers permanence, irreversibility, and space scoping adequately. It doesn't cover error cases or side effects, but for a low-complexity destructive tool, this is sufficient.

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 only 50% (space_id has a description, campaign_id does not). The description adds context for space_id by explaining when to use the override, but campaign_id semantics are left implicit. The tool name and purpose make campaign_id obvious, but the description doesn't explicitly clarify its format or requirements.

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 starts with 'Delete a campaign' which is a specific verb+resource pair, clearly distinguishing it from other delete tools for ads, assets, etc. It also clarifies the scope of deletion, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description provides clear context on how to control the target resource via Space scoping, mentioning set_active_space and the space_id override. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the Space guidance is helpful for correct usage.

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