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

The description adds rich behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses that deletion is permanent only for DRAFT campaigns, that non-draft campaigns are merely marked for deletion, and that reporting data is preserved. These are exactly the consequences an agent needs to know before invoking a destructive tool, and they go well past the destructiveHint=true annotation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with parenthetical specifics; every clause earns its place by conveying a distinct behavioral fact (conditional permanence, soft-delete fallback, data preservation, preview flag). No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values and the preview response need not be described. The description covers the conditional deletion semantics thoroughly. Minor gaps remain around required IDs or permissions, but annotations (openWorldHint, destructiveHint) cover the safety profile adequately.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the confirm parameter ('confirm=false = preview'), which covers the one non-obvious param; account_id and campaign_id are self-explanatory by name. It compensates partially but leaves those two identifiers undocumented in both schema and description.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Deletes a LinkedIn campaign'), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like delete_linkedin_campaign_group or delete_linkedin_creative by the resource named. It does not explicitly contrast with adjacent tools such as pause_campaign or update_campaign_status, but the resource specificity carries most of the routing weight.

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?

There's no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance (e.g., versus pausing or updating status). However, the 'confirm=false = preview' note gives a concrete usage behavior for a dry run, which is a useful implicit guideline. Overall usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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