delete_campaign_feedback

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds context: 'Irreversible', authentication requirements, rate limits ('Max 10 concurrent requests'), and that it respects read-only/dry-run modes, which are valuable beyond the annotations.

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 very concise: a one-line overview followed by bullet-like notes and an Args section. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundancy. The structure front-loads the core action and then provides supporting details.

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?

The description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage scenario, prerequisites (list_campaign_feedback), authentication, rate limits, parameter details, and return format. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still provides a summary. The context is complete for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains each parameter, including how to obtain campaign_id (from list_campaigns), feedback_id (from list_campaign_feedback), and the account parameter (optional, with naming convention and fallback). This adds crucial meaning missing from 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 action ('Delete'), the resource ('a campaign feedback comment'), and emphasizes permanence ('permanently'). This distinguishes it from sibling delete tools that target different resources.

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 advises using this tool to 'remove an obsolete collaboration note' and suggests using list_campaign_feedback to discover feedback IDs. It provides context but does not explicitly contrast with update_campaign_feedback or other tools.

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