delete_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the most important trait: deletion is permanent and cannot be undone. It also specifies the confirm requirement, though it omits side effects such as what happens to associated ad sets/ads and any permission or rate-limit considerations.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the irreversible nature of the operation, and contains no wasted wording.

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 destructive two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the core warning and confirm requirement are present. Completeness is limited by missing cascade/side-effect details and authentication or permission notes.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for confirm by saying to set it True after reviewing the campaign ID, but it gives no format or validation detail for campaign_id beyond naming it.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Permanently delete a Meta campaign." The word "permanently" implicitly distinguishes it from soft status changes like pause_campaign or activate_campaign, but it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative.

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?

It provides a concrete usage instruction: set confirm=True after reviewing the campaign ID. However, it does not say when to choose permanent deletion versus pausing, deactivating, or bulk status updates, so usage context is only partially implied.

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