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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: soft-delete with a 30-day retention window and purgeAt, restoration path, that sent emails and share links are unaffected, and that a confirmation preview with name/state/send-count is shown first. Also discloses the exact error discriminators (campaign_sending, not_found for cross-tenant ids).

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?

Dense but every sentence carries information; the only inefficiency is that the resource definition precedes the action so the verb 'Deletes' is not front-loaded. Errors are grouped at the end in a logical order.

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 output schema, the definition covers lifecycle, recovery, side effects, confirmation flow and failure modes. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 schema documents all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of the confirmation preview and its token loosely contextualizes confirm/confirmationToken, but adds no new constraints or formats beyond the schema.

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 ('Deletes a drop (a campaign in the API)') and defines what a drop is, so an agent can map the term to the resource. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling lnkdrp_archive_drop, which presumably is the softer alternative, so the sibling discrimination is incomplete.

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?

Gives clear conditions and consequences ('kept 30 days in Recently deleted, where lnkdrp_restore_drop brings it back') and names the state in which the call is rejected (campaign_sending), which lets the agent judge applicability. It never states when to prefer archive_drop over delete, which is the main remaining gap.

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