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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical trait: irreversibility ('Permanently', 'NOT reversible') plus the human-approval gate. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements or what happens to associated campaign data, so 4 rather than 5.

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, front-loaded with the destructive action and irreversibility, followed immediately by the precondition. No filler.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the safety-critical information: permanence and the required approval workflow. The only meaningful gap is the undocumented `id` parameter.

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 0% and the description never mentions the single required `id` parameter or what it identifies. The agent must infer from the tool name that `id` is a campaign identifier; the description adds no format or meaning beyond that inference.

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 ('Permanently delete a campaign') and distinguishes itself from the nearby siblings `archive_campaign` (softer alternative) and `preview_delete_campaign` (the review step). An agent can route correctly 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?

Explicit precondition: only call after reviewing `preview_delete_campaign` output and obtaining explicit user approval. This names both the prerequisite tool and the gating condition, leaving nothing to inference.

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