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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: deletion is irreversible and there is a two-phase preview/apply gate via confirm. It still omits cascade effects (ad groups, ads, keywords) and any permission requirements.

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 compact sentences, both earning their place, with the destructive consequence and the confirm gate front-loaded. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 an irreversible delete with 0% schema coverage, the description covers the critical irreversibility and confirm semantics, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. However, cascade scope of the deletion and the undocumented IDs leave meaningful gaps for a mutation this dangerous.

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 carries the full burden. It explains the non-obvious `confirm` parameter well (preview vs. apply) but says nothing about account_id, campaign_id, or customer_id, leaving three of four parameters undocumented.

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+resource ("Deletes a Microsoft campaign") that cleanly separates it from sibling deletes like delete_meta_campaign and delete_linkedin_campaign. It is clear, though it does not explicitly call out those siblings or the scope of what is deleted.

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 "confirm=false = preview, confirm=true applies" sentence gives invocation context and implies a safe dry-run-then-apply workflow. It stops short of when-to-use guidance, e.g. when to delete vs. pause via update_microsoft_campaign_status, or prerequisites before deletion.

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