Api campaigns destroy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description contributes nothing beyond that — it does not state what is destroyed, whether cascading deletes occur, or whether permissions are required — but it does not contradict the annotations either.

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 text is minimal, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no front-loaded statement of purpose or effect, just an echoed name.

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 destructive delete operation with an undocumented required identifier, the definition provides essentially nothing an agent needs beyond the annotations. Contextually inadequate.

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 single required parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage and the description says nothing about it. It is left to the agent to infer that this is the campaign identifier.

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 merely repeats the tool name in snake_case ('api_campaigns_destroy') with no verb+resource phrasing. An agent can infer deletion of a campaign from the name alone, but the description adds nothing distinguishing it from siblings like campaigns_partial_update or campaigns_batch_action_create.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no warning about irreversibility. The agent must infer everything from the name and annotations.

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