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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantive context beyond them: what is removed (campaign leaves listings) versus retained (calls, recordings, transcripts, billing records), the 409 conflict, and the 404 on retry. This is exactly the retention-vs-destruction detail an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the eligible states, then side effects, then error semantics and the confirmation prompt. No redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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, yet the description covers side effects, retention, failure modes (409/404), and the human-in-the-loop requirement. For a two-parameter destructive tool this leaves nothing material unspecified.

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 carries no description. The description implies campaign_id is the identifier of a deletable campaign but adds no format or lookup guidance, so it neither compensates for nor worsens the gap.

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 (campaign), and goes further by enumerating the eligible statuses (draft, held, blocked, completed, cancelled). An agent can distinguish this from cancel_campaign because the description explicitly routes active campaigns there.

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?

Gives the exact precondition for use (campaign must be in a deletable state), names the alternative path (cancel first for launching/scheduled/running/paused), states the error on violation (409 campaign_active), and prescribes asking the user to confirm. Near-complete routing guidance.

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