github_campaigns_delete_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Delete a campaign' without disclosing whether deletion is permanent, what permissions are required, or any side effects. For a mutation operation, more behavioral context is expected.

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 sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it quick to parse. Every word is essential.

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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it could mention that the action is permanent or require specific permissions, which would improve completeness. Given the low complexity, a 3 is reasonable.

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 coverage is 100% but the parameter descriptions are tautological ('org', 'campaign_number'), adding no meaning beyond the parameter names. The tool description does not elaborate on these parameters, so the agent gains no additional insight into what values are valid or how they are used.

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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('a campaign for an organization'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_campaign, update_campaign, list_org_campaigns, and get_campaign_summary. The verb+resource pattern is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no conditions for safe usage, and no mention of when not to use it. It simply states what it does without any contextual advice.

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