ebay_delete_campaign

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive mutation. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond the word 'Delete'—it does not mention whether the deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to ads or keywords, or whether any confirmation is required. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description contributes no additional behavioral transparency.

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 of seven words, with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Delete') and identifies the resource and API. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core action. However, it omits important context an agent might need: whether the campaign must exist, whether deletion is permanent or can be undone, and what happens to associated entities (ads, bidding strategies). The annotations cover the destructive nature, but the description could still benefit from a note on irreversibility or expected outcome.

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 schema description for campaignId is 'campaignId required endpoint parameter', which is essentially restating the name and required flag. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information, but the parameter name is self-explanatory as the identifier of the campaign to delete. No extra semantic value is provided beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Delete' with the resource 'campaign' and identifies the API context ('eBay Marketing API'). This is sufficient to distinguish it from the many sibling tools that operate on other resources (ads, notifications, inventory items). However, it does not differentiate from the closely related 'ebay_end_campaign', which might also stop a campaign but likely not delete it permanently.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ebay_end_campaign, ebay_pause_campaign, or ebay_delete_email_campaign. The description simply states the action without context about prerequisites, irreversibility, or when one operation should be preferred over another. This leaves the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name.

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