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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the most important trait: the campaign is NOT deleted, confirming this is non-destructive. It does not detail what the preview output contains, but for a dry-run tool the key safety guarantee is explicitly communicated.

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 with zero filler. The non-destructive guarantee is front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this description is nearly complete. It conveys the operation, the safety trait, and the object being previewed. The only notable absence is a fuller description of what 'what would happen' looks like, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 has one required id with 0% description coverage. The description does not explicitly explain the id parameter, though 'a campaign' implies id refers to a campaign identifier. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, so the low schema coverage is only partially compensated.

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: 'Show what would happen if you delete a campaign.' It explicitly differentiates this from actually deleting by adding 'The campaign is NOT deleted,' which separates it from delete_campaign and other preview tools in the sibling list.

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 makes the dry-run context clear: this is a safe preview of deletion, not an actual deletion. It does not explicitly name delete_campaign as the alternative for actually deleting, so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is unmistakable.

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