delete_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 of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the action ('Delete a standard campaign') without mentioning consequences such as reversibility, cascading deletions, authorization needs, or whether this is a hard or soft delete. The description adds no value beyond the tool name.

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 terse sentence with no filler or redundant clauses. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple deletion operation, though it borders on under-specification.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and many related campaign-deletion sibling tools, the description is too thin. It does not clarify what 'standard' means, whether archived campaigns are excluded, or any side effects, making it insufficient for safe and correct invocation.

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 already documents the `id` parameter as 'Campaign ID' with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Description uses the specific verb 'delete' with resource 'standard campaign', and the qualifier 'standard' distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_archived_campaign, vast_delete_campaign, and draft_delete_campaign. It clearly states the tool's function and scope.

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 word 'standard' implies this is for regular (non-archived) campaigns rather than archived or specialized (vast/draft) ones, but no explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool over alternatives. It lacks clear context or exclusions beyond the implied meaning of 'standard'.

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