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

Goes well beyond destructiveHint=true by disclosing irreversibility and the full two-phase confirmation protocol after an out-of-band change, including that the first call mutates nothing and returns a question plus confirmToken. That is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the core constraint (only unsent campaigns) and the undo warning early. The confirmation paragraph is dense but earns its space; a couple of clauses about where the app can show the question are slightly indirect but necessary for correct invocation.

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 explains the notable return shape (a question to relay verbatim plus a confirmToken). For a destructive, non-idempotent tool with confirmation gating, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds value by pointing to readCampaigns as the source of broadcastId and by warning that names are not unique, explaining when campaignName is used. The confirmToken usage rule is reinforced beyond the schema wording.

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?

Specific verb (delete) plus resource (campaign), with the scope narrowed to drafts and scheduled campaigns and the sent case explicitly excluded. It also names updateCampaign as the non-delete alternative, so the agent can separate it from the other campaign-mutating siblings.

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?

States when to use it (draft or scheduled campaign, send called off), when not to (a sent campaign cannot be deleted), the alternative (updateCampaign), and the id source (readCampaigns). It even gives a disambiguation rule when several campaigns match a spoken name.

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