aircall_delete_campaign

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

The description is consistent with annotations (destructiveHint=true), but adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. It does not disclose side effects like irreversibility or cascade effects on campaign numbers, but with destructiveHint already present, the bar is lower.

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 clear sentence that conveys the action and target without unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the destructiveHint annotation, the description is largely complete. It could mention that deletion is permanent or that it only affects the specified user's campaign, but these are minor gaps.

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 covers 100% of parameters and includes a description for user_id. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a user's power dialer campaign'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling delete tools like aircall_delete_config or aircall_delete_contact. It precisely identifies the target of the operation.

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 implies when to use the tool (when deleting a user's power dialer campaign) but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools. For instance, it doesn't mention that aircall_get_campaign should be used to verify existence first.

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