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 single most important behavioral trait: this is a non-destructive dry-run ('The campaign is NOT deleted'). It does not cover what the preview actually returns or any permission/rate-limit considerations, but the core safety behavior is clear.

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 waste, with the consequential reassurance ('The campaign is NOT deleted.') front-loaded immediately after the action statement.

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 preview tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented id parameter, the description establishes purpose and non-destructiveness but says nothing about what the preview reveals (e.g., affected audiences, channels, data loss), which is the whole point an agent would call it for.

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% with one parameter (id). The description references 'a campaign', implying id identifies the campaign, but adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond that inference. Minimal compensation for the coverage gap.

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+resource combination ('show what would happen if you delete a campaign') and explicitly disambiguates from the real delete operation by noting the campaign is NOT deleted. The distinction from delete_campaign is implied rather than named, but an agent can tell the two apart.

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?

Usage is only implied: the term 'preview' and the non-deletion guarantee suggest this is a dry-run to check consequences before calling delete_campaign. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus the actual delete, nor any listed prerequisites.

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