delete_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the destructive nature of the operation. It does not mention permanence, side effects, permissions, or whether the delete is idempotent; the endpoint method is the only added signal.

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?

One short sentence states the action, resource, and endpoint with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a tool with a single parameter.

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 one-parameter destructive action, the description plus schema provide enough to invoke the tool correctly: the operation, the resource, and the required id. It lacks any warning about irreversibility, but delete semantics are sufficiently clear.

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?

The input schema already fully documents the single id parameter with 100% coverage, so the description has little to add. The endpoint path '/campaigns/:id' reinforces that id is the campaign identifier but adds no new semantic detail.

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 ('Delete a campaign') and adds the exact HTTP endpoint, leaving no ambiguity about what is being acted on. It clearly differentiates from sibling operations like delete_topic or cancel_campaign by naming the campaign resource.

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 intended usage is implied by the verb and resource: use this when a campaign needs to be deleted. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it relates to siblings such as cancel_campaign or update_campaign.

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