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 covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the cascade: an active campaign is stopped first, ceases applying to signatures, and is then removed. It stops short of stating irreversibility or any required permissions/scope.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the identifying detail (UUID) plus the lifecycle behavior are front-loaded. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the safety hints, the parameter documentation, and the cascade behavior are all covered. The only meaningful omission is an explicit statement about irreversibility or recovery, which matters for a delete.

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%, so both `id` and `context` are already fully documented, including the pointer to list_marketing_campaigns for obtaining the UUID. The description's "by UUID" restates the schema rather than extending it, so the 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 ("Delete a marketing campaign") and pins the identifier form ("by UUID"), which separates it cleanly from sibling mutations like update_marketing_campaign, pause_marketing_campaign, and resume_marketing_campaign. An agent can select it without opening 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?

The description implies the destructive use case but never states when to choose this over pause_marketing_campaign or update_marketing_campaign, nor does it warn that the operation is permanent. Usage is inferable from the verb alone, which is the minimum-viable bar.

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