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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the deletion is guarded and will not proceed for ideas tied to a live or launched campaign. It does not state irreversibility or what error/return occurs when the guard trips, though the output schema covers returns.

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 the core action and precondition front-loaded, and the exception second. Tight and waste-free, though the second clause is slightly compressed.

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?

With annotations carrying the destructive profile, an output schema, and a fully documented single parameter, the description covers nearly everything needed. The remaining gap is not naming the tool to use on the archive path.

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?

Only one parameter, with 100% schema coverage and an inline description pointing at campaign_ideas_list as the source. The description adds nothing about ideaId, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a campaign idea) plus a hard precondition (must have no campaign), which is more than the name conveys. It does not name the sibling tool that performs the suggested archive alternative, so sibling routing is only implicit.

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?

Explicitly gives the use condition (idea with no campaign) and a when-not condition (idea that launched or is launching a campaign), pointing to an alternative action. The alternative is described as an action ('archive its campaign') rather than a tool name such as campaigns_set_status, leaving one inference step.

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