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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description still earns its keep by disclosing blast radius — signatures that received the banner are mutated too — and confirming irreversibility in plain language. It stops short of saying whether those signature edits are themselves recoverable or what permissions are required.

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, zero filler. The destructive side effect leads and the irreversibility warning closes — exactly the front-loaded order an agent needs.

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 critical facts — what gets destroyed, that it cascades to signatures, that it cannot be undone — are all present, and annotations cover the safety profile. Only the recovery/alternative path is left unaddressed.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it fully ('Campaign id from list_campaigns') at 100% coverage. The description adds no id format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond that, 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 (delete) and resource (campaign) plus the secondary effect: the banner is stripped from every signature it reached. That scope language makes it unmistakable against list_campaigns, update_campaign, pause_campaign, and resume_campaign without naming them.

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?

'Not reversible' signals a caution-worthy operation, implying an agent should prefer pause_campaign when it only wants to stop delivery, but that alternative is never named. No prerequisites (e.g., whether the campaign must be paused or who may delete) are given, so the guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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