Campaigns Remove Campaign Criteria

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'removes' is consistent. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations by explicitly requiring confirm=true for the operation to take effect, which is not captured in the annotations. It also provides a hint on how to locate criterion ids, offering extra practical guidance on the process.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and the critical requirement (confirm=true) is stated immediately. The additional hint about finding ids is useful and completes the purpose without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 operation with an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the main requirements (confirm flag, how to find ids) and the core action. Missing details like validation behavior or login_customer_id are likely standard across sibling tools and not critical for correct invocation. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call this tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not directly explain parameters. The description indirectly references 'criterion id' (criterion_ids) and 'confirm=true' (confirm), giving some semantics for two of the six parameters, but it leaves customer_id, campaign_id, validate_only, and login_customer_id unexplained. With such low coverage, the description should compensate more thoroughly; it only partially does.

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 ('removes') and the resource ('campaign criteria'), and even lists the types of criteria (locations, languages, negatives). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'campaigns_add_campaign_targeting' by explicitly indicating removal, though it does not name the alternative directly. This is clear and specific enough for an agent to know what it does.

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 gives some usage context by stating the prerequisite of finding criterion ids via a search on campaign_criterion and the requirement to set confirm=true. However, it does not explicitly instruct when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to remove versus add or update criteria), leaving the decision partly to inference. There is no mention of when not to use it or what other tools to consider.

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