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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: provider-side removal plus a local soft-delete, retention of insight history, irreversibility, and a human-approval gate. It stops short of describing the response or failure behavior, so not a 5.

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 with the action and scope front-loaded and no filler; the irreversibility and approval warnings follow immediately. The bracketed "[publish]" prefix is slightly cryptic and adds mild noise, but the rest is efficiently packed.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers what gets deleted, what survives, irreversibility, and the approval requirement – most of what an agent needs. Gaps are the identifier-resolution rules and confirmation of what a successful call returns, though annotations and the lack of an output schema soften those.

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% and both parameters are optional, so the schema alone leaves the calling contract ambiguous. The description helps by presenting the two identifiers as alternatives ("ads_campaign_id or ads_campaign_uuid"), but it does not state whether either alone suffices, what happens if both are supplied, or what happens if neither is.

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 ("Remove") and resource ("an ad campaign"), scopes it ("on the provider and soft-delete it here"), and lists the accepted identifiers. An agent can distinguish this from edit_ads_campaign, pause_ads_campaign, and delete_ads_audience without opening any schema.

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 communicates key context for deciding whether to act ("Cannot be undone", "Requires human approval"), which implies caution. However, it never names alternatives such as pause_ads_campaign for reversible disabling or edit_ads_campaign for modification, so the agent must infer when-not to use this tool from the sibling list.

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