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 it does disclose one important trait: deletion is really an archive/soft delete. However, it omits whether the action is reversible, whether child adsets/ads are affected, and any permission requirements, which matters for a destructive operation.

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?

A single short sentence with the key clarifying fact ('safe delete') front-loaded after the verb. No wasted words, though it is arguably too terse given what is left unsaid.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but for a destructive tool with zero annotations the description should cover reversibility, side effects on nested entities, and required permissions. None of that is present.

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% and the description says nothing about campaign_id, but the parameter is a single, self-evident identifier whose meaning is clear from its name. There is little semantic ambiguity to compensate for, so this is a baseline-adequate case.

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?

States a specific verb ('Archive') and resource ('campaign'), and the parenthetical '(safe delete)' disambiguates the operation from a hard delete. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling delete_adset/delete_ad, but the resource noun makes the scope unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus update_campaign or the template-based alternatives, and no prerequisites (permissions, campaign status) are mentioned. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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