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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint, but the description adds substantial beyond-schema detail: ACTIVE campaigns are auto-paused with a specific reason, queued sends are cancelled, and the template-only campaign exception is called out. This is exactly the context an agent needs before a destructive cascade.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the destructive consequences, then the exception, then prerequisites. The parenthetical aside is dense with useful information and earns its place; no padding.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return/effect burden and does so fully by describing the cascade side effects. Everything an agent needs to invoke this destructive tool correctly is present.

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%, so both promptId and confirm are documented in the schema itself, including confirm's 'must be true' semantics. The description restates 'Requires confirm: true' without adding meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Delete) and resource (LinkedNav prompt template) with the identifier scope ('by ID'). Clearly distinguishable from sibling delete tools like delete_campaign, delete_contact, delete_list, and delete_ai_setup.

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 directs the agent to call get_prompt first to inspect campaignCount before deleting, and states the confirm prerequisite. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' framing, but the cascade warning effectively tells the agent when this is dangerous.

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