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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the irreversible nature via the title and the key side effect that deleting the campaign does not stop the Signal Search or its hunters. It does not describe what happens to a currently running campaign or permissions, but the most decision-relevant side effects are present.

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, each contributing distinct information: the operation, the non-destructive side effect on the search, and the required precondition. The most important action is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 action with no output schema, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, side effects, and sequencing. The only real gap is the undocumented search_id semantics, which is partially mitigated by the tool name and the mention of Signal Search, so the definition is solid but not flawless.

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 only provides 'search_id' as a required string with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description never explicitly maps search_id to the Signal Search or states where to obtain it, leaving the agent to infer this connection from indirect wording. This is the weakest area of the definition.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete the SDR outreach campaign.' The phrase 'SDR outreach campaign' distinguishes this from sibling tools like sdr_delete_search and delete_campaign, and the title adds the irreversible consequence. There is no ambiguity about what operation this tool performs.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition: 'Only call after sdr_preview_delete_outreach,' which tells an agent the required sequencing. The warning that the Signal Search and hunters continue running also implies this tool is not the way to delete the search itself, though it does not explicitly name the alternative tool.

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