ads_delete_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explicitly states the operation is permanent and cascades to all child objects (ad sets and ads), which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not mention the confirm parameter's role or any permission/precondition requirements, so transparency is not complete.

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 primary action, no filler. Every word earns its place, and the structure is ideal for quick parsing.

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?

While the core effect is captured, the description omits parameter semantics, usage guidance, and any mention of the confirmation flow or result behavior. With no output schema or annotations, the agent is left with critical gaps for a destructive operation, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning to either parameter. The confirm boolean is likely a safety confirmation but its behavior is completely undocumented, leaving the agent to guess whether setting it to true is required. This is a significant gap for a destructive tool.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Delete a campaign permanently') and adds a critical distinguishing detail ('Cascades to all ad sets and ads under it'), which differentiates it from non-destructive siblings like ads_pause_campaign or ads_activate_campaign and from delete tools targeting other resources.

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?

The permanent and cascading nature implies destructive use, but the description does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives like pausing or activating. It lacks direct comparison or when-not-to-use guidance, so the usage context is only implied.

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