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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the plan is destroyed alongside the campaign, but generated posts persist and some may already be published - the kind of cascade detail annotations cannot express. It stops short of saying the deletion is irreversible or whether scheduled posts must be cancelled 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action and followed by the surprising side-effect. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 a destructive single-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, this covers what is lost and what is kept, which is the main risk. Minor gaps remain: irreversibility, and whether an active or scheduled campaign must be paused or have its posts cancelled first.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%; the schema already documents that 'id' accepts an id or a name. The description adds no additional semantics such as whether name lookup fails on duplicate campaign names, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Removes a campaign and its plan') and immediately delimits scope by saying the posts it produced survive. That scope statement is what separates it from delete_post and cancel_campaign_posts without needing either schema opened.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb: an agent can infer 'use this to get rid of a campaign.' No alternatives are named (cancel_campaign_posts, pause_campaign, delete_project) and no preconditions or exclusions are stated.

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