mailchimp_campaigns_delete

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

The word 'permanently' discloses that the action is irreversible, which is valuable given there are no annotations. However, the description does not mention other behavioral traits such as required permissions, impact on campaign statistics, or whether the operation can be performed on campaigns in any state. With no annotations, this is a partial disclosure.

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?

The description is a single short sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple delete operation with one fully documented parameter, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks contextual details such as whether deletion is soft or hard, side effects on related entities (e.g., reports, automations), and any permission requirements. The absence of an output schema means return behavior is also unaddressed, though that is often implicit for delete operations.

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 fully describes the sole parameter 'campaign_id' as 'Campaign ID to delete', providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond confirming the resource type, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Permanently delete a campaign' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (campaign), and the permanence adds specificity. It unambiguously differentiates this from other campaign-related tools in the sibling list, such as pause, archive, or schedule.

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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool or any alternatives, but the tool name and description make its purpose obvious. There are no sibling tools for deleting campaigns, so the usage context is implied. However, no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., cannot delete sent campaigns) are mentioned.

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