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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the nuance that channels are 'disabled' rather than hard-deleted, but says nothing about the fate of ads/keywords/audiences under those channels, reversibility, or whether the campaign must be paused first.

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 no filler, though it is arguably too thin for a destructive mutation rather than optimally concise.

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?

With annotations covering destructiveness, no output schema needed, and both parameters fully documented, the core call is well specified. But side effects on dependent entities and reversibility are left unexplained, which matters for a destructiveHint tool in a large sibling set of remove_* tools.

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 100%, with campaign_id and the enum-restricted channels array fully documented including an example. The description adds marginally ('one or more entire channels'), but nothing about the semantics of removing all channels or ordering beyond the schema baseline.

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 (disable/remove entire channels from a campaign) and, with the name, an agent can distinguish it from siblings like remove_ad_from_campaign or remove_audiences_from_campaign. The only wrinkle is the name says 'remove' while the description says 'disable', which is informative but slightly ambiguous without elaboration.

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 use this versus alternatives such as remove_ad_from_campaign, archive_campaigns, or manage_campaign, and no stated preconditions (campaign state, whether it must be launched, whether channels can be re-enabled). The agent must infer all usage context.

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