draft_delete_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'Delete' but does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent, what happens to associated data (e.g., placements, ad items), whether it only succeeds for drafts, or any side effects. The word 'draft' implies a limited scope, but key behavioral context is missing.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no fluff or redundant information, and every word carries meaning. This is appropriately sized for a simple delete operation with one parameter.

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 low complexity (one well-documented parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally viable. However, the absence of annotations and lack of guidance on consequences or usage context leave gaps that could be filled. It does clearly state what it does, but for a destructive operation, a bit more context (e.g., irreversibility, status constraints) would improve completeness.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with description 'Draft campaign ID', so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal meaning by clarifying the resource is a 'draft standard campaign', which slightly reinforces the parameter's context, but does not introduce new details 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 "Delete a draft standard campaign" uses the specific verb 'delete' and clearly identifies the resource ('draft standard campaign'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_campaign (for live campaigns), draft_delete_campaign_assignment, and draft_delete_catalog_ad_item, which target different resources or states.

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. It does not contrast with delete_campaign, archive_campaign, or draft_save_campaign, nor does it mention any prerequisites or restrictions (e.g., only works on unsaved drafts). This leaves the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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