delete_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The word 'permanently' explicitly communicates that the deletion is irreversible and destructive. However, it does not mention other potential effects, such as whether associated data (e.g., reports, content) is also deleted, or whether any special permissions are required. The disclosure is minimal but not absent.

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 four words, with zero filler. It efficiently communicates the core action and the permanent nature, making it easy to parse quickly.

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), the description covers the essential action, but it lacks context about side effects, error conditions, or prerequisites. It does not explain what happens to campaign content or history after deletion, which may be important for an agent. The completeness is low-to-moderate.

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 describes the single parameter 'campaign_id' with the description 'The campaign ID to delete,' giving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional semantic details about the parameter beyond what the schema already states. Per baseline, this is adequate.

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 tool's function: 'Permanently delete a campaign.' The verb 'delete' is specific, and the resource 'campaign' is unambiguous. The adverb 'permanently' adds a key distinguishing nuance, implying irreversibility, which sets it apart from other campaign-related tools.

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 like 'update_campaign' or 'archive_member'. It does not state any preconditions (e.g., campaign must exist) or scenarios where deletion is appropriate. No usage context is given.

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