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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the cascade effect (removing campaign membership from contacts) and the confirm:true requirement, which are not visible elsewhere.

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 tight sentences, front-loading the action and side effect, with the invocation requirement last. No filler, nothing redundant.

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 simple two-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and invocation requirement adequately. It could add whether deletion is permanent, but that gap is minor.

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 0%, so the description carries the load. It explains the confirm parameter's meaning (must be set true to proceed) despite the schema marking it optional with default false — a valuable clarification — but says nothing about campaignId beyond its name.

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') plus the notable side effect of removing campaign membership from contacts. This clearly distinguishes it from create_campaign, update_campaign, and pause_campaign, though it does not name a specific sibling to differentiate scope from remove_leads_from_campaign.

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?

Provides a precondition ('Requires confirm: true') that the agent must satisfy to invoke it successfully, which is useful. However, it offers no when-to-use versus alternatives (pause_campaign, update_campaign) and no explicit statement that the action is irreversible.

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