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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds genuine value by specifying exactly what is destroyed or skipped: queued calls are cancelled and remaining contacts are skipped. It stops short of stating reversibility or whether re-cancelling an already-cancelled campaign errors.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and then the consequence. No filler, nothing to trim.

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?

The core side effects are conveyed, but for a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema there is no mention of return shape, error cases, or auth/permission needs, and the required campaign_id is unexplained.

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 only 50%: organization_id is documented in the schema, but campaign_id has no description anywhere. The description adds no parameter information, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented required identifier.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Cancel a campaign') and even names the concrete effects on queued calls and remaining contacts. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like pause_campaign or resume_campaign, leaving the cancel-vs-pause distinction to inference.

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 is no guidance on when to cancel versus pause, whether cancellation is appropriate mid-launch, or any precondition (e.g. campaign must be running). The agent must guess which sibling to reach for.

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