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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the critical irreversible, destructive nature ('Permanently delete', 'NOT reversible') and the required human approval gate. This is exactly the kind of high-risk behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a deletion 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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the irreversible warning and the approval prerequisite. Every 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 simple one-parameter deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides everything needed to call it correctly: what it does, the destructive consequence, and the required precondition. It even points to the relevant preview tool for the approval workflow.

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?

The schema provides 0% property descriptions, so the description must compensate. The single `id` parameter is reasonably inferable as the campaign identifier from the tool name and title, but the description adds no explicit detail about the id's format, source, or meaning beyond what the schema name alone implies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a campaign.' It clearly distinguishes this destructive action from previewing deletion, and the title's 'irreversible' adds a strong scope cue. An agent can immediately tell this is the actual deletion tool, not a preview or archive operation.

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 gives an explicit when-to-call condition: only after the user has reviewed `preview_delete_campaign` output and explicitly approved. It does not explicitly name alternatives like `archive_campaign` for reversible actions, but the prerequisite and warning are clear enough to prevent premature invocation.

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