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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the baseline is covered, but the description adds genuine value by disclosing the cascade (participant list is also deleted) and a blocking precondition about active widgets. It omits irreversibility, permission requirements, and what happens if the guard 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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the destructive scope is front-loaded. The second sentence is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic ("Not while a widget shows it" reads as a fragment).

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the two things an agent most needs: the cascade effect and the widget precondition. Remaining gaps around failure modes and permissions are minor at this complexity.

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% with a single required campaign_id already described as coming from list_campaigns, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no format, range, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 hashtag campaign") and adds meaningful scope detail by noting it also removes the joined-people list, which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling remove_campaign_participant. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Provides an explicit when-not condition: "Not while a widget shows it," which is a real precondition an agent would otherwise miss. It does not name an alternative tool or say what to do instead (e.g., delete the widget first), leaving the remedy implicit.

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