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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully clarifies that the search and hunters are unaffected, and the title flags irreversibility. It does not say what happens to associated outreach content, leads, or whether auth/ownership constraints apply, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a destructive operation.

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 short sentences with no filler, ordering the action first and the safety prerequisite last. 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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the essential scope and the preview prerequisite but omits the semantics of search_id and the downstream effects of deletion. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 single parameter search_id has 0% schema description coverage and the description never explains what it identifies or where it comes from (e.g., the id returned by sdr_create_search/sdr_get_search). With zero compensation for an undocumented parameter on a destructive tool, this is weak.

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 ('Delete the SDR outreach campaign') and immediately disambiguates scope by noting the Signal Search and its hunters keep running, which separates it from sdr_delete_search and delete_campaign. An agent can pick this tool without opening the 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 an explicit prerequisite: 'Only call after sdr_preview_delete_outreach.' That names the required preceding tool, which is strong guidance. It does not state when-not to call (e.g., mid-launch conditions) or how it differs from the preview sibling beyond ordering.

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