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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds important behavioral detail beyond them: the deletion is irreversible, removes all ad sets and ads, and stops delivery immediately. This is exactly the kind of impact disclosure an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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?

The description is three tight sentences with no wasted text. The destructive scope and irreversibility are front-loaded, followed by the required confirmation step.

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 campaign-deletion tool with no output schema, the description covers what is deleted, the side effect on delivery, irreversibility, and the required human confirmation. The annotations and schema cover the remaining structural details, so the agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 75%, and the schema already documents accountId, profileId, and campaignId. The description adds that campaignId should come from ads_get_tree, but it does not explain the adAccountId parameter, which lacks a schema description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: delete a campaign. It also clarifies cascade scope by saying all ad sets and ads are deleted, and ties campaignId to ads_get_tree, so the agent can distinguish it from creation or status-change siblings.

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?

It gives a clear pre-use condition: confirm the campaign by name with the user first. It also makes the irreversible consequence explicit. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as pausing via ads_set_status when deletion is not intended, so it falls short of full when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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