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

Annotations confirm destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by specifying exactly what is destroyed (the campaign and its reached-set) and what is preserved (contacts and the list). This is crucial behavioral context beyond the annotations, helping the agent understand the exact side effects.

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 tightly crafted sentences: the first states the primary action, the second states explicit exclusions. No fluff, no redundancy, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 destructive operation with annotations and well-defined scope, this description is fully sufficient. It explains what is deleted and what is not, making the tool's behavior completely predictable without needing an output schema.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter 'id' is already described as 'Campaign ID'. The description adds marginal context by clarifying it refers to a list campaign, but provides no additional syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Permanently delete') and clearly identifies the resource ('paced list campaign') and its scope ('reached-set'). It distinguishes itself from sibling delete_campaign by specifying 'list campaign', and clarifies what it does NOT delete (contacts or list), leaving no ambiguity.

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 implies usage by naming the resource type and scoping, and the negative exclusions help define boundaries. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like delete_campaign or deletion of a contact list, leaving the when-to-use guidance largely implicit.

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