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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the cascade (all ad sets and ads are deleted), the irreversibility, and the immediate delivery stop. It stops short of stating permission requirements or whether the deletion can be recovered.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler: scope first, then the irreversible/immediate effect, then the safety instruction. Each sentence earns its place.

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 description covers scope, irreversibility, side effects, and the required user confirmation, and annotations carry the safety hints. It could still say whether permissions are needed or whether any recovery is possible, so it is not fully complete.

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%, with adAccountId carrying no description in either the schema or the description. The description implies campaignId comes from ads_get_tree and that the campaign should be confirmed by name, but adds no format or defaulting detail 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 (delete), the exact resource (campaign) and its cascade scope (ad sets and ads), and ties the resource to its source tool ads_get_tree. An agent can distinguish this from ads_set_status or delete_comment without opening any 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?

Gives a workflow prerequisite (confirm the campaign by name with the user first) but never names when to prefer this over alternatives such as ads_set_status for pausing. Usage is implied rather than explicitly scoped.

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