delete_archived_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "Permanently delete" discloses the irreversible, destructive nature of the action, which is meaningful. However, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., campaign must be archived), potential errors, or permissions needed.

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, clear sentence with no filler or redundant content. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 one-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and object. It could mention that the campaign must already be archived or what happens to associated data, but the simplicity of the tool makes the current description sufficient.

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 covers the single 'id' parameter at 100%, with the description 'Archived campaign ID'. The tool description adds only the word 'standard' to indicate the campaign type, which is marginally useful but doesn't substantially enhance the schema's own description.

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 is specific and unambiguous: "Permanently delete an archived standard campaign" clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (archived standard campaign). It distinguishes itself from related tools like delete_campaign and vast_delete_archived_campaign by specifying "archived" and "standard".

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 implies usage context: use this tool only for archived standard campaigns, not active ones. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., unarchive_campaign to restore), but the 'archived' qualifier and sibling tool names make the intended use clear.

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